Religious Nationalism As an Explanation for the Destruction and Appropriation of Armenian Ecclesiastical Cultural Heritage Sites Within the Republic of Georgia

Title Page

Religious Nationalism as an Explanation for the Destruction and Appropriation of Armenian Ecclesiastical Cultural Heritage Sites within the Republic of Georgia

John Guidon

Submitted to Central European University Nationalism Studies Program

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Arts

Supervisor: Professor András László Pap

Budapest, Hungary 2019 CEU eTD Collection 1

Abstract

In the years immediately following its independence from the Soviet Union, Georgia

constructed one of the largest religious buildings in the world, the Sameba Cathedral.

However, the cathedral was not constructed on an unassuming, vacant patch of land in the

capital of Tbilisi, but on the site of a 17th century Armenian cemetery. Similarly, in 2017, the

crumbling Tandoyants Armenian Church in Tbilisi was gifted to the Georgian Orthodox

Church with plans to raze the church and build a Georgian Orthodox Church in its place.

These are just several of the most recent and well known cases of erasure of Armenian church

history in Georgia. Approximately eighty Armenian churches in Georgia were destroyed

during Georgia’s time as a member of the Soviet Union, but after freedom was attained in

1991 the policy towards these Armenian churches shifted to a new direction: appropriation.

This appropriation and destruction of Armenian cultural heritage sites in Georgia is the direct

result of a uniquely religious form of nationalism that exists in Georgia, and it has allowed

for the creation the environment in which this cultural destruction has occurred.

CEU eTD Collection

2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my thesis advisor in the Nationalism Studies Program, Dr. András

László Pap, as well as other professors at Central European University, including Dr. András

Kovács, Dr. Mária Kovács, and Dr. Volker Menze. The knowledge gained from taking the

courses they teach has been integral to the completion of this thesis. I also wish to thank Dr.

Jennifer Barry, Dr. Nabil Al-Tikriti, and Dr. Elizabeth Johnson-Young from the University of

Mary Washington for providing countless hours of mentoring and advising during my

undergraduate education, without which I would not have been adequately prepared for this

experience at CEU. Finally, I would like to thank Nina Soulier and Will Greer for reading

and providing invaluable feedback on earlier drafts of this thesis, and Alexander Clegg for

taking me to Georgia in 2016 and sparking my interest in the South Caucasus. CEU eTD Collection

3

Table of Contents

Abstract… 1 Acknowledgements… 2 Table of Contents… 3 Introduction… 4-14 Theoretical Framework...6-8 Review of Literature… 8-13 Summary… 14 1: Religion in Georgia and Armenia… 15-33 1.1: Origins of Christianity in Georgia… 16-20 1.2: Origins of Religion in Armenia… 20-22 1.3: Doctrinal Schism Between Georgia and Armenia… 22-23 1.3.1: Divine vs. Human Nature, and Early Ecumenical Councils… 23 1.3.2: The Council of Chalcedon… 24 1.3.3: Effects of Chalcedon in the Caucasus and the Council of Dvin… 25-28 1.3.4: The Consequences of Armenia’s Miaphysitic Position, and the Role of Mazdaism… 29-32 1.4: Long Lasting Effects of the Late Antique Period... 32-33 Chapter 2: The Destruction of Armenian Culture Sites in Georgia… 34-42 2.1: A Tradition of Cultural Destruction in the Caucasus… 34-35 2.2: The History of the Armenian Community in Georgia… 35-37 2.3: The Destruction of Armenian Ecclesiastical Sites in Tbilisi… 37-39 2.4: The Destruction of Armenian Ecclesiastical Sites Outside of Tbilisi… 39 2.5: The Reaction of the Armenian Apostolic Church…40-41 2.6: The Ruinous Effects of Cultural Destruction…41-42 Chapter 3: Cultural Heritage Law... 43-51 3.1: International Conventions… 43-47 3.2: Domestic Laws… 47- 50 3.2.1: Georgian Law… 47-50 3.2.2: Armenian Law… 50 3.3: Large Scale Violations of Cultural Heritage Laws… 50-51 Chapter 4: Nationalism as an Explanation… 52-67 4.1: National Origin Myths... 52-55 4.1.1: Georgian Origin Myth… 53-54 4.1.2: Armenian Origin Myth… 54-55 4.2: Further Georgian National Myths and Symbols… 55-58 4.3: Other Facets of Nationalism at Play… 58-66 4.3.1: Architecture and Nationalism… 58-59 4.3.2: Language and Nationalism… 59-60 4.3.3: Georgian Precedent for Establishing a Historical Narrative of a Minority Group as CEU eTD Collection “Outsiders”... 60-62 4.3.4: Modern Incursions in Georgia… 62-66 4.4: Destruction of Armenian Cultural Heritage in Georgia and La Long Durée… 65-67 Bibliography… 68-74

4

Introduction In 1994, recently free from the clutches of the Soviet Union, Georgia constructed one

of the largest religious buildings in the world, the Sameba Cathedral. However, the cathedral

was not constructed on an unassuming, vacant patch of land in the capital of Tbilisi, but on

the site of a 17th century Armenian cemetery. Similarly, in 2017, the crumbling Tandoyants

Armenian Church in Tbilisi was gifted to the Georgian Orthodox Church with plans to raze

the church and build a Georgian Orthodox Church in its place. These are just a couple of the

most recent and well known cases of erasure of Armenian church history in Georgia.

Approximately eighty Armenian churches in Georgia were destroyed during Georgia’s time

as a member of the Soviet Union, but after independence was attained in 1991 the policy

towards these Armenian churches shifted to a new direction: appropriation.

Appropriation in this context can be as brazen and obvious as the above mentioned

example of the Sameba Cathedral being built on an Armenian cemetery, but it can also be

much more subtle. These appropriations usually take place under the context of “restoration”

by the Georgian government or Georgian Orthodox Church, but often this restoration just

results in the Armenian features of the church being removed. Examples of these

“restorations” include Armenian inscriptions being removed, Armenian ecclesiastical

architectural features such as high alters being removed, and even gravestones bearing

Armenian epitaphs being removed. After these sites are “restored” they are often then

appropriated, being converted to Georgian Orthodox Churches or in the case of Armenian

cemeteries, the interment of Georgians in these cemeteries. CEU eTD Collection The purpose of this thesis will be to explore the erasure and appropriation of

Armenian ecclesiastical architectural sites in Georgia, and seek to provide an explanation for

this occurrence through a unique form of religious nationalism which exists in Georgia.

Additionally, contemporary international conventions and agreements will be analyzed to

5

demonstrate that the actions of the Georgian government towards Armenian cultural heritage

sites within the borders of Georgia represent violations of these international agreements. As

a result, this project will add to the literature on the Georgian Orthodox Church by

demonstrating another area of society in which the church asserts its power and influence.

Despite there officially being a separation of church and state, the Georgian Orthodox Church

is the recipient of benefits which are not available to other religious groups in Georgia, and

holds significant political influence. This project will show that the Georgian Orthodox

Church is using this position of power and influence to further marginalize a minority group

and erase its culture, as well as show that the church has been able to achieve this position of

power and influence as a result of the unique form of religious nationalism that exists in

Georgia.

To show that this unique form of religious nationalism exists in Georgia, this project

features an analysis of the literature on the late-antique origins of religious controversy

between Georgia and Armenia and the formation of Georgian nationalism around the basis of

Orthodoxy. Once the basis of a historical religious conflict between Georgia and Armenia,

and the existence of a unique Georgian religious nationalism are established, the project then

shifts to the contemporary period for an analysis of the destruction and appropriation of

Armenian ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites in Georgia to demonstrate how the former can

explain the latter. Finally, an analysis of international legal conventions to which Georgia and

Armenia are both signatory parties will show that the Georgian destruction and appropriation

of Armenian ecclesiastical heritage sights violates these international agreements. CEU eTD Collection

Theoretical Framework

Rogers Brubaker writes about four ways of studying the relation between religion

and nationalism: (1) to treat religion and nationalism as an analogous phenomenon, (2) to

6

specify ways in which religion helps to explain things about nationalism, (3) to treat religion

as part of nationalism, and (4) to posit a distinctively religious form of nationalism. This

project will focus on the third explanation, seeing religion and nationalism as deeply

intertwined concepts. One hallmark of this explanation is the relation between religious and

national boundaries. In the strongest version of this concept, a nation would be made up of

only those of a particular religion. In the case of Georgia they appear to be trending towards

becoming a homogenous state made up of members of the Georgian Orthodox Church.1This

intertwinement can also be seen in national myths and symbols, and this thesis investigates

Georgian myths to help prove this point.

By arguing that Georgian nationalism is distinctively religious, this thesis shows why

Georgian churches and religious sites are given much more prominence and priority in

Georgia, and why some of the preexisting Armenian sites are being removed to make way for

new Georgian religious sites. The origins of the Georgian Orthodox religious tradition will be

examined to illustrate their role in Georgian nationalism. Using Brubaker’s theories, the

history of Georgian and Armenian religious conflict will also be examined to illustrate that

this erasure of Armenian religious sites in Georgia is the result of a distinctly religious form

of nationalism.

Memory politics and collective memory are also crucial to for this project, collective

memory being the projection of the past which is shared by a community. This memory is

based on a set of beliefs that apply to the past - beliefs that do not need to correlate with facts

or historical truths.2 Collective memory is particularly important for religious and CEU eTD Collection nationalistic groups, as it is a necessary tool for these groups to create a sense of belonging,

and this sense of belonging can often come from buying into the collective memory narrative

1 Rogers Brubaker, “Religion and Nationalism: Four Approaches” Nations and Nationalism 18 (1), 2012, pp.1- 20. 2 Piotr Forecki, Reconstructing Memory: The Holocaust in Polish Public Debates, (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2013), 13.

7

which that group pushes.3 In regards to the relation of collective memory to the destruction

and appropriation of Armenian cultural sites in Georgia, the narrative is often pushed by the

government that Georgia, and Tbilisi specifically, is for Georgians; and while there may have

at one point in the near past been an Armenian church on that land, historically it is Georgian

land, and as such Georgians have an inherent right to this land. Factually, this narrative of

Armenian cultural heritage sites just being temporary placeholders on traditionally Georgian

land is not always true, and is an example of the manipulation of collective memory.

Historically, there has been a substantial Armenian population in Georgia dating back

to the 6th century, with the first Armenian diocese established in Georgia in the 12th

century.4 In the beginning of the 18th century, Armenians made up 60% of the population of

Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, and in 1817 this number reached its peak at 75.6%, before

falling to 36.4% by the end of the 19th century.5 Even into the 20th century, the Armenians

still made up a significant portion of the population of Georgia, making up 21.3% in 1959

and 14.5% in 1979.6 These population statistics show that Armenians have a historically

established presence as an ethnic and religious group in Georgia, specifically in Tbilisi,

therefore the idea that they are not historically present is a product of collective memory

manipulation by political actors.

Using theories on religious nationalism, as well as collective memory as theoretical

framework, this thesis will show how the two can work together and be operationalized by

political actors to contribute to the marginalization of a religious or ethnic minority within a

state. CEU eTD Collection

3 Ibid., 14. 4 Satenik Mkrtchian, “Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” Iran and the Caucasus, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2009), pp. 299-300. 5 Satenik Mkrtchian, “Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” Iran and the Caucasus, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2009), pp. 299-300. 6 Ibid., 301.

8

Review of Literature

The following literature review will review Armenian Culture in Georgia and

International and Intranational Conventions and Laws.

Armenian Culture in Georgia

Armenian culture was once well established in Georgia, but in recent years it has been

both appropriated and stolen by the Georgian government and the Georgian Orthodox

Church. The discussion of the sources that follow help to demonstrate this.

Scholarly Sources

There does not appear to be a great amount of scholarship on the destruction or

appropriation of Armenian cultural heritage sites in Georgia. In Contemporary Armenian

Community in Tbilisi, Mkrtchian discusses the general atmosphere of Armenian culture in

Tbilisi. He writes that in 1844 there were 21 Armenian churches and 65 Armenian priests in

Tbilisi, and that today there are only two Armenian churches currently functioning in Tbilisi:

St. Gevorg and St. Echmindzin, he adds that St. Gevorg is the center of Little Armenia in

Tbilisi, and serves as a place for community gatherings and meetings where people could

comfortably speak Armenian and discuss Armenian issues. He goes on to say that the

Armenian diocese in Georgia has a problem with its official status in Georgia, as do many

other minority religions there. On the topic of cultural appropriation, he says that the

Armenian Apostolic Church has petitioned for the return of six Armenian churches in

Georgia, and that five of them are in Tbilisi.

In Edge of Empire, Rayfield discusses Khojivank, an Armenian cemetery which was CEU eTD Collection destroyed to make way for the largest Georgian Orthodox Church. He states that on 26 June

1865 trade guild members met at the cemetery and declared a strike on shops, inns, cabs, and

restaurants. This shows that the cemetery was an important community gathering place and

could have contributed to the reason for why it was destroyed. Rayfield also talks about one

9

of the earliest cases of theft of Armenian cultural property in Georgia. In 1903 General

Grigori Golitsyn confiscated Armenian church lands and funds, thus creating a generation of

Armenian terrorists and provoking ethnic violence in Tbilisi.7 This ethnic violence turned on

to Golitsyn himself, when in July 1904 he was stabbed in the head by a group of Armenians,

though he did survive.

Hovannisian elaborates on the story of Golitsyn in Simon Vratzian and Armenian

Nationalism. He says that Armenian nationalism had become very strong in Tbilisi around

the turn of the 20th century, and as such Golitsyn convinced Tsar Nicolas II to let him

confiscate the properties of the church and place its schools under centralized governmental

control. He believed that the network of parish schools under the Church of Armenia were the

cause of this nationalism. This furthers the sentiments present in Mkrtchian’s article that

Armenian churches further foster Armenian culture in Georgia. Although Golitsyn was

representing the Russian empire, it still provides important context for the theft of Armenian

culture in Georgia.

International Conventions and Local Laws

These sections will look at international conventions on the protection of cultural

heritage, as well as domestic cultural heritage laws in both Georgia and Armenia. The

domestic building code of Georgia will also be analyzed to show the process a renovation

must go through in Georgia.

International Conventions

The focus of this thesis is on the destruction and appropriation of Armenian cultural CEU eTD Collection heritage property within Georgia, and as such it is important to define what cultural property

is. Article 1 of the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the

7 Previously the Caucasus had been governed by a viceroy, but were now being ruled upon by generals who answered to the minister of interior. Golitsyn was appointed by Tsar Nicolas II to be the chief ruler of these generals in 1896. Donald Rayfield , Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia (London: Reaktion Books, 2012): 307.

10

Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) defines cultural

property as property, which on religious or secular grounds, is specifically designated by each

state as significant for archeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science. Additionally,

this property must relate to history, which includes the history of science, technology,

military and society, or to the life of national leaders, thinkers, scientists, artists, and events of

national importance. This last point is of particular interest to this project, as there exists a list

of people who either are or were interned in the Khojivank Cemetery in Tbilisi before it was

destroyed, and these people can be further researched to determine if they constitute being

classified as national leaders, thinkers, scientists, or artists. Article 2 of the same declaration

notes that the transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the main causes of the

impoverishment of the cultural heritage of the countries of origin of such property, and

Article 3 states that the transfer of ownership of cultural property effected contrary to the

provisions adopted under this convention will be illicit. This is relevant for the transfer of

church property in Georgia from the Armenian Apostolic Church to the Georgian Orthodox

Church.

Article 4 of the UNESCO convention further defines property, which forms part of

the cultural heritage of each state. It says that property can be created by the individual or a

collective of nationals of the state concerned, and cultural property of importance to the state

concerned created within the territory of that state by foreign nationals or stateless persons

resident within such territory. This would appear to cover property created by Armenians

within Georgia. Article 5 states that states should set up national services which can handle CEU eTD Collection the protection of cultural heritage.

Domestic Laws

Georgia maintains its own laws of cultural heritage protection, entitled the Law of

Georgia on Cultural Heritage Protection, which were brought into force in 2008. Article 1 of

11

this states that the purpose of the law is to protect Georgia’s cultural heritage and regulate

legal relations arising in this field, while Article 2 deals with scope, noting that the law

applies to the entire heritage on the territory of Georgia, while also empowering the state to

ensure the safety of Georgian cultural heritage abroad. As mandated in the UNESCO

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and

Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, Georgia has established an entity to handle

cultural heritage. Article 4 of the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage Protection empowers

the Ministry of Culture, Monument Protection, and Sport to monitor cultural heritage. Article

5 further establishes their role, stating that the Ministry shall ensure the supervision of

cultural heritage protection and will lead and coordinate the uncovering, protection, and

promotion of cultural heritage on the territory of Georgia. It will also be responsible for

producing a comprehensive inventory of historic areas and will draft regulations for cultural

heritage protection areas. Article 15 notes that it is not only the Ministry that is responsible

for cultural protection, but that individuals and legal entities are also obligated to protect and

take care of cultural heritage. This is relevant because it does not relieve the Georgian

Orthodox Church and its members from the responsibility of protecting cultural heritage.

Article 15 covers how a property gets granted the status of a cultural heritage site,

saying that the status shall be granted to a property based on its historical or cultural value

associated with its age, uniqueness, or authenticity. This is relevant because as was

previously mentioned, the Armenian Apostolic Church applied to have one of its churches be

listed as a cultural heritage site, eventually having the request denied. Article 44 states that if CEU eTD Collection any activity disturbs cultural heritage or creates a threat within a protection zone, the ministry

shall apply to relevant state bodies with a request to restrict, suspend, or terminate such

activity. This is relevant to the case because as previous articles mention, construction has

occurred which has threatened cultural heritage. Finally, Article 29 is the only article which

12

directly mentions the Georgian Orthodox Church, saying that the public should be able to

enter buildings of public interest, but when it is a building of the Georgian Orthodox Church,

religious rights shall prevail over the right of the public for access to the building.

Interestingly, no other religious denomination is mentioned in the text, nor is anything

relating to minorities.

The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Intangible Cultural Heritage was adopted by

the Republic of Armenia in 2009, and provided protection for intangible cultural heritage

both within its borders and abroad. Chapter Five of this law deals with the international

cooperation of the Republic of Armenia in the field of intangible cultural heritage and

preservation of Armenian intangible cultural heritage in foreign states. Article 16 of Chapter

5 states that Armenian intangible cultural heritage in foreign states shall be safeguarded in

accordance with the interstate treaties of the Republic of Armenia, within the frameworks of

the legislation of the country concerned, the principles and norms of international law.

Building Code

The building code laws in Georgia are also relevant, and are present in a 2011 USAID

assessment of Georgian Building Codes. They found that building code in Georgia allows

designers, architects, and engineers to use any methods they desire, and that no license is

required to practice designing, engineering, or construction. There are two departments in

Georgia which issue building permits, The Architectural Building Permit Office and the

Construction and Inspection Office. There are five classes of construction projects that these

departments handle, with one being the most simple, and five being the most complex, CEU eTD Collection including projects like dams and power plants. Class Five projects are permitted by an office

called MoESD. USAID found that not all construction and renovation projects actually apply

for permits, as well as finding that certification is granted with minimum inspection and

sometimes even without inspection. They also noted that no license or registration is required

13

for a contractor to build. The Architectural Building Permit Office deals with classes two

through four, and the Construction and Inspection Office handles all projects up to class four,

as well as handling all inspections for all renovation projects. This code will be important to

understand how renovations and construction operates in Georgia.

Summary

Armenian cultural heritage sites are being destroyed and appropriated within the

borders of Georgia, and the narrative being pushed in Georgia is that it is part of a

reclamation of Georgian territory, however, this may be the result of a manipulation of the

collective memory by political actors. This appropriation is also the result of a uniquely

religious form of nationalism that exists in Georgia. The next chapter will cover in depth the

history of religious conflict between Georgia and Armenia, and how it helped to shape the

national image of Georgia as a devoutly orthodox state with Armenia as its heretical

neighbor. Following chapters will provide an analysis of the contemporary destruction of

Armenian cultural sites in Georgia using news reports, and will apply the international

conventions to which Georgia is a signatory party to establish that this destruction and

appropriation is a violation of international law.

CEU eTD Collection

14

Chapter 1: Religion in Georgia and Armenia

Religion is of the utmost importance in both Georgia and Armenia, however it is more

so exhibited in a sense of feeling than in a demonstration of practice. The two nations exhibit

low levels of religiosity when measured by attendance, prayer, and fasting, but overall have

very high levels of trust in their respective religious institutions.8 In both Georgia and

Armenia the army and the church are the two most trusted institutions, and this is a result of

both institutions being perceived as protectors of the nation throughout history. Additionally,

this intense sense of trust and pride being exhibited towards the church in Georgia and

Armenia is a result of each state being home to a church that is exclusive and specific to their

nation: the Georgian Orthodox Church, and the Armenian Apostolic Church.9 Further

strengthening the link between religion and national identity in Georgia is the presence of a

figurehead for the Georgian Orthodox Church. Patriarch Ilya II, who is among the most

trusted and respected individuals in Georgia, and perceived as an uncorrupt leader.10 In both

CEU eTD Collection Georgia and Armenia religious identity is intrinsically linked with national identity, and this

has allowed for a unique form of nationalism to flourish in Georgia, one in which to be

8 Robia Charles, “Religiosity and Trust in Religious Institutions: Tales from the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia), Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies (2009), 1. 9 Ibid., 23-24. 10 Ibid., 25.

15

Georgian means to be a member of the Georgian Orthodox Church. This chapter will provide

a historical analysis for this linkage of Orthodoxy to the Georgian national image, and

explore how Georgia’s conversion to Christianity and doctrinal schism with Armenia

contributed to Georgian nationalism and set the foundation which would allow for the

appropriation and destruction of Armenian ecclesiastical heritage sites to occur.

1.1: Origins of Christianity in Georgia

The history of Christianity in Georgia dates back to the years immediately following

the crucifixion of Jesus Christ when his apostles spread out across the world to spread his

message to new audiences. The Georgian tradition maintains that the apostle Andrew planted

the seeds of Christianity in Georgia, and this has always been a major point of pride for the

Georgian people. However, this has not always been seen as factual truth by all. Opponents

argue that Georgia was an insignificant territory at the time, and as such, would not have

attracted apostolic attention.11

Georgian Orthodox tradition states that Andrew came to Georgia, specifically to

Samtskhe, performed miracles, demonstrated to the local population the characteristics of

Christianity, and eventually baptized the governor of the entire Samdzivari as well as most of

the local population.12 With these newly baptized Christians he left a gift to help them

remember the power of Christianity: The Icon of the Holy Virgin. This icon was placed in a

church in Atskuri before being moved to Tsikhisjuari, and then finally to Imereti.13

When Andrew eventually left Georgia, he appointed a bishop as well as several

CEU eTD Collection priests and deacons, and with that the newfound Georgian Church had a hierarchical

structure. Allegedly. Andrew came back to Georgia as many as three more times, however,

11 Mamuka Matsaberidze, ed, A Short History of the Georgian Church (New York: Troitsa, 2014), 4. 12 Tamila Mgaloblishvili, ed., Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus: Iberica Caucasica Volume One (Surrey, England: Cuzon Press. 1998.), 27. 13 Ibid.

16

this is much harder to prove. Georgian traditions also claim that he brought different disciples

with him each time, and the following disciples join Andrew as those speculated to have

preached in Georgia: Simon, Mattias, Bartholomew, Thomas, and Thaddeus.14 This claim of

an apostolic presence in Georgia from the very beginning is important, as it gives the church

a great deal of authority and legitimacy.

While Georgian nationalists trace the church’s origins to Andrew, it really is not until

the fourth century that Georgia would become theologically significant. Generally, Western

Georgia received Christianity first, with the areas closer to the Black Sea being first to

convert on a large scale, followed by those in the Caucasus mountains and the Caspian Sea.

Christian burial sites in Mtskheta have been located and dated to the second century, which

help to further confirm the early Georgian Christian tradition.15 The third century brought the

first Christian communities to Georgia as the faith grew stronger in the region. In the third

century, the church hierarchy was still exclusive to each individual church, there was no

region wide religious authority at this time.16

The fourth century is perhaps the most important in the history of Christianity in

Georgia. By 317 Christianity was declared the official state religion in Georgia, and by 324

there was a mass baptism of the Georgian people. The Georgian conversion narrative states

that all of this was accomplished by one woman: Nino of Cappadocia.17 Tradition says that

the Lord told St. Nino “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few; therefore, ask the

Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest” (Matthew 9: 37-38).18 St. Nino was

born in Colossae in 280 CE, which is located present day Turkey and was the target of the CEU eTD Collection

14 Mamuka Matsaberidze, ed, A Short History of the Georgian Church (New York: Troitsa, 2014), 5. 15 Ibid., 7-8. 16 Ibid., 11-12. 17 Ibid., 13-14. 18 Ibid., 13-14.

17

famous Letter of Paul to the Colossians.19 When she was twelve years old her family sold

everything and moved to Jerusalem, however, she was quickly abandoned by her family and

left as an orphan. She then had a divine dream in which the Virgin Mary appeared to her and

told her to go north and preach the word of Jesus and gave Nino a cross to protect herself.

Nino decided to travel north to Ephesus with a noblewoman who had been in Jerusalem

visiting holy sites. Nino found herself living in a nunnery in Ephesus for some time until an

envoy of Emperor Diocletian arrived. They were seeking to find a bride for the emperor and

chose a princess who was living there with her stepmother, Hripsime. All of the women in the

nunnery felt that Hripsime’s chastity was being threatened, so they fled for the Armenian

border. Unfortunately, crossing the border into Armenia would not solve all of their

problems. Once there, Armenian King Tiridates learned of Hripsime’s presence and decided

he wanted her for himself. Upon her refusal, she was martyred along with a number of the

other women in their party, however, Nino was able to escape.20 This small anecdote

provides an example of Armenia being depicted in a negative light in the Georgian religious

tradition.

Nino fled to the mountains of Javakheti, where she settled and began to live on the

shores of Lake Paravani. She survived by begging for food from shepherds and fisherman,

and often heard them praying to their pagan gods Armazi and Zaden. She was greatly

distraught by hearing pagan worship and asked the men where they were from. They

informed her that they were from Mtskheta, and she decided that she needed to go there and

spread the word of God. She traveled to Mtskheta with a group of Pagans traveling to pay CEU eTD Collection tribute to their god, Armazi, and upon seeing

sorcerers, fire worshipers, and seducers on Pompey Bridge she began to cry. When she

19 David Lang, Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints. Crestwood (New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1956), 13-39. 20 Ibid.

18

arrived in Mtskheta she witnessed a ceremony where Georgian Queen Nana and King Miriam

offered sacrifices to the gods Armazi and Gatsi. This greatly upset Nino and she said a prayer

to God asking that he allow the whole nation to see God’s infinite power, and God sent a

hurricane which destroyed the idols and city walls.21

After the great hurricane, she moved to the banks of the Kura River and lived in a

bramble bush which formed a natural tent. Here she gained her first disciple, Sidonia, the

daughter of a Jewish priest. She healed a pagan woman’s son in the bush and converted many

of the local population. Queen Nana soon became very ill and Nino was asked to come and

heal her. Nino said she would heal the queen if she came to her bush, and there she

successfully healed the queen. This led the queen to exclaim: “There is no God besides Christ

whom this slave girl preaches.” After King Mariam got lost in the woods of Tkhoti and a

divine light led him out, he decided to convert all of Georgia to Christianity. The king sent a

letter to Emperor Constantine asking him to send priests and bishops to baptize the Georgian

population, and Constantine happily obliged. The king then asked Constantine for help

establishing the faith in Georgia, and Constantine send him a portion of the cross from the

crucifixion of Christ as a relic, as well as priests and masons to help build churches. The first

church was built in Eursheti, followed by one in Mtskheta. Nino then moved on from

Mtskheta and traveled to Kakheti where she converted many more people. She was able to

convert the Queen of Kakheti in Bodbe, and it is after this event that she ascended to heaven,

thus completing her legacy of bringing Christianity to an entire nation.22

This foundational story of Georgian Orthodoxy, from its purported apostolic origins CEU eTD Collection to its conversion under St. Nino demonstrates Georgia’s long history with religiosity, and

provides a national myth for the Georgian people. In this myth Nino, and by proxy

Christianity, delivered Georgia from the wicked times of paganism and propeled the state into

21 Ibid. 22 Ibid.

19

a new era under Godly rulership. The apostolic origins of Georgia being linked to Andrew are

also significant. In the Orthodox tradition St. Andrew is given the name “the First Called” as

he was the first follower of Christ, and this ranks him as the highest of apostles, meaning

Georgia’s apostolic origins supercede those of all other churches, with the exception of

churches whose roots also lie in the missionary work of St. Andrew. Georgia’s exceptionally

long link with Christianity have helped to shape the image of Georgia as that of a Christian

nation, and this significantly contributed to the evolution of its religious nationalism.

1.2: Origins of Religion in Armenia

While like Georgia, the Armenian church does make claims of apostolic origins, in

their case through the apostle Bartholomew, this is not met with much historical fact. In the

5th century narratives of Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples mentioned in the Gospel of

Luke, was said to have been the first notable Christian figure to preach in Armenia, as well as

to be martyred there. In the 8th century a narrative began to be popularized that the apostle

Bartholomew, who appears in the Gospel of John, also preached in Armenia. Both of these

apostles would have been preaching in Armenia in the 1st century C.E., however, as with

most stories of apostolic origins, the claims are not easily substantiated.23

Regardless of if Thaddeus or Bartholomew ever did preach Christianity in Armenia,

neither of them had any success in establishing a religious community. For this reason,

Gregory the Illuminator is ubiquitously held as the founder of the Armenian church. Gregory

was born and raised as Christian in the town of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and in 298 he went

to Armenia with Trdat, a pagan, who had been visiting Cappadocia. Once back in Armenia, CEU eTD Collection Trdat was convinced that he should become a Christian when he became struck with an

illness after ordering the martyrdom of a group of nuns, who had come to the area fleeing

Roman persecution. Gregory the Illuminator was able to heal Trdat of his illnesses, and as a

23 Robert Thomson, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 12/13, (1988/1989), 29.

20

result, Trdat decided to become a Christian, and to convert the entirety of his people. Gregory

the Illuminator was sent back to his hometown of Caesarea in Cappadocia to be consecrated

as a bishop in 314, and by the time he returned to Armenia pagan shrines had been felled,

with Christian churches being built in their place. The central church was established in

Ejmiacin (present day Vagharshapat), which was the location where Trdat had previously

ordered the nuns to be martyred, and was also near the royal court. With this done, Gregory

was able to establish a system of bishoprics, and eventually handed over the leadership of the

church to his son.24 Gregory desired to live a more solitary life, so after leaving the church to

his son Aristakes, he moved to the Armenian province of Daranalik to live the rest of his days

in the mountain Caves of Mane.25 It is in the Caves of Mane that we find a connection to the

Georgian story of conversion to Christianity. The Caves of Mane were named after a woman

named Mane, who along with the Georgian convertor Nino, was a member of the group of

women that were traveling with Saint Hripsime. Mane had spent time in the caves before

eventually being martyred while traveling with Nino and Hripsime.26 While this connection is

not particularly significant, it does provide another example of the close relationship that the

Armenian and Georgian churches once shared.

The Georgian and Armenian Christian origin stories show that both Georgia and

Armenia have similar beginnings to their churches, both were converted by miracle workers

from Cappadocia. Their churches were similar, and they were allies for many years, until

eventually choices made over the rulings of the Council of Chalcedon would drive them

apart. Armenia is regarded as the first state in the world to have officially converted to CEU eTD Collection Christianity, with Georgia following them shortly thereafter. When the purported apostolic

origins and conversion stories are considered along with this fact, it becomes clear that

24 Thomson, “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization”, 30-31. 25 Moses Khorenats’i, History of the Armenians (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978), 248. 26 Ibid., 248.

21

Georgia and Armenia have about as long and storied relationships with Christianity that a

state could have. Being two of the first states to convert to Christianity and maintaining that

image into the contemporary period has shaped the national image of both Georgia and

Armenia to be intrinsically linked with their respective Christian traditions.

1.3: Doctrinal Schism Between Georgia and Armenia

While both Georgia and Armenia maintain two of the oldest Christian traditions in the

world, both adopted Christianity as a state religion in the first half of the fourth century, the

two churches have long been on opposite sides of orthodoxy, dating back to the Council of

Chalcedon in 451. The council was one of the foundational ecumenical councils of the early

Christian church which helped to establish which beliefs would be orthodox. Specifically, at

this council the nature of Jesus was discussed, and whether he was of one nature or of two.

The orthodox position that was established was that Christ was of two natures, and this

position became known as Chalcedonism. The opposing position, which broke with

orthodoxy and believed that Christ was only of one nature, was known as miaphysitic.

Immediately this did not have an impact on the Georgian and Armenian churches, but after

several church councils of their own in the Caucasus in the sixth century, Georgia ultimately

sided with Chalcedonism, and Armenia with Miaphysitism.

This sections on the doctrinal divide between Georgia and Armenia will explore why

the two nations, previously close regional allies, went their separate ways over the discussion

of the divinity of Christ, and show that Armenia sided with miaphysitism over a distrust of

CEU eTD Collection the Byzantine empire, and in an effort to preserve their Christian tradition in the face of its

potential destruction at the hands of the Persians. By doing this, this section will show where

the doctrinal split between Georgia and Armenia occured, which resulted in each state

practicing a different form of christianity, and resulted in Armenia having religious authority

over Georgia for a number of years. During this period of authority over Georgia, Armenia

22

attempted to mandate the use of its language and implement its culture into Georgia through

the church. The Georgian retaliation to this incursion was a key contributing factor to the

foundation of its tradition of religious nationalism, as well as an aversion to the Armenian

Apostolic Church which has resulted in the appropriation and destruction of Armenian

ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites in the contemporary period.

1.3.1: Divine vs. Human Nature, and Early Ecumenincal Councils

The Council of Chalcedon has its origins in the debate between Christotokos vs.

Theotokos, and which of the two terms should be used when referring to the Virgin Mary.

Eutychus was the main voice behind the position of Theotokos, which placed importance on

Mary being known as the “Mother of God”, while Nestorius and the term Christotokos

defined the Virgin Mary as as “Mother of Christ.”27 The Bishop of Alexandria, Cyril,

declared that Theotokos was the proper term and that Nestorius should revise his position,

and this declaration was solidified at the Council of Ephesus in 431 C.E., in which Theotokos

was proclaimed to be most in line with Nicene doctrine.28

Immediately following this, the debate over the nature, or natures, of Jesus Christ rose

to prominence. In the 440’s Pope Leo wrote the Tome of Leo, in which he proclaimed that

Christ was one single person, but with two natures, divine and human. The other side of this

debate would argue that Christ was of one nature, which was a combination of the human and

the divine.29 When Emperor Marcian ascended to the throne in 450 this position was

strengthened with imperial support, but would need to be solidified with an ecumenical

30 CEU eTD Collection council, which took place in 451 C.E in Chalcedon.

27 Habit Amirav, Authority and Performance: Sociological Perspectives on the Council of Chalcedon AD 451 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015), 32. 28 Ibid., 33. 29 Ibid., 33. 30 Ibid., 34.

23

1.3.2: The Council of Chalcedon

Chalcedon was a suburb of Constantinople, and the council was to take place at the

Church of St. Euphemia, which sat on the bank of the Bosporus strait.31 There were initially

plans to host the council in Nicea, but the site near Constantinople was chosen, possibly in an

act of environmental psychology, a theory in which the location, structure, and property of

places can influence people’s actions. In this case, the idea would be that by choosing a

location that was so close to the seat of Emperor Marcian, as well as being the church of a

martyr, it would subconsciously influence those in attendance to side with the emperor and

orthodoxy.32

Ultimately, whether due to environmental psychology or not, the will of the emperor

was reflected in the outcome of the council. A new definition of faith regarding the nature of

Jesus Christ was established, with the chosen wording being that Christ was “in two natures.”

This new definition did not completely deny the implication that the humanity of Jesus Christ

is separable from the divine nature, which is present in the Theotokos definition, it did

completely deny the idea that the divine and human nature of Christ is mixed into one nature.

Neither Nestorians nor Eutychains, who represented the two opposite extremes of the debate,

were particularly pleased with the outcome, but both Emperor Marcian and Pope Leo were,

and they had hoped for a sound closure to the issue, with it being established that a two

natured Christ was the official orthodox position, with believers of a one natured Christ being

heretical.33 Those who followed the ruling of the Council of Chalcedon became known as

Chalcedonic, and those who opposed it believing in only one nature of Christ, would come to CEU eTD Collection be known as miaphystic.

31 Ibid., 38. 32 Ibid., 38-39. 33 Ibid., 33.

24

1.3.3: Effects of Chalcedon in the Caucasus and the Council of Dvin.

Several factors played a partial role in Armenia not ultimately accepting the position

of Chalcedon. Firstly, Nestorian propaganda had been spreading throughout Armenia at the

hands of the Syro-Iranian church in the decades preceding the Council of Chalcedon in 451,

which predisposed the Armenian religious society to the ideas of Miaphysitism.34 Secondly

was the issue of language. The Armenian language was developed at the beginning of the 5th

century C.E, and the Tome of Leo was so poorly translated into the Armenian language that it

appeared to support the Nestorian tradition.35 The third factor which helped to predispose the

Armenians to Miaphysitism was Emperor Marcian himself. He was profoundly unpopular

with the Armenian people due to his refusal to provide them with military aid to protect

themselves from the invading Persian forces, as an attempt to avoid an empire-wide all out

war with the Persians.36 Despite the emperor’s good intentions to save the entire empire from

war, it did not play well with the Armenian population. These factors worked together to lay

the foundation for the Armenian church to become schismatic and part ways with orthodoxy.

The churches of the Caucasus did not make any immediate resolutions in the

immediate aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon, this would come later, at their own

council. The bishops of Armenia, Kartli, and Albania met for the first Council of Dvin in 505,

and at this council they chose to express doctrinal unity with the empire.37 However, at this

point in time empire had drifted back into a Miaphysite position with the publication of the

Henotikon in 482. In this publication, the Emperor Zeno writes: “He, having descended, and

become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, is one and not CEU eTD Collection two; for we affirm that both his miracles, and the sufferings which he voluntarily endured in

34 Cyril Toumanoff, “Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran: New Light From Old Sources,” Traditio Vol. 10 (1954): 137. 35 Toumanoff, “Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran,” 138. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid., 142.

25

the flesh, are those of a single person.”38 This clearly takes a Miaphysitic stance, and was an

attempt to reunify the Christian world, which had been somewhat divided after the rulings of

the council of Chalcedon.

However, this stance of reunification would not be long lived. When Justin I ascended

to the throne in 518 he rescinded on the words of Zeno in the Henotikon, and returned the

empire to a fully Chalcedonic position.39 Word does not appear to have traveled fast in the

Caucasus, as the Second Council of Dvin was held in 555 C.E, and it was at this council that

the Armenian church denounced the rulings of the Council of Chalcedon, and it can also be

seen as the year in which the Armenian national church was established, independent of a

ruling power.40

Initially, Georgia mirrored Armenia in terms of the rulings of the Council of

Chalcedon. After a late 5th century war with Iran, the Georgian King Vakhtang married a

relative of Emperor Zeno, and subsequently brought his church in line with that of Byzantine

church, and adopted Zeno’s Henotikon.41 There is no evidence to suggest that Georgian

representatives were present at the Second Council of Dvin in 555 C.E, where Armenia

officially adopted Miaphysitism. Georgia first shifted to a Chalcedonic position in the 580’s

when Byzantine Emperor Maurice led successful military campaigns in the Caucasus and was

able to weaken Iranian influence enough for Georgia to regain autonomy, and in this state,

with their ties being very close with Byzantine, they adopted the Chalcedonic position.42 This

would, however, be temporarily short lived. In 598 C.E, Georgian King Stepanoz switched

from this Chalcedonic position to a Miaphysitic one in order to curry favor with the Iranians. CEU eTD Collection

38 Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (AD431-594), translated by E. Walford (1846). Book 3, Chapter XIV, Line 138. 39 Toumanoff, “Christian Caucasia Between Byzantium and Iran,” 145. 40 Ibid. 41 Ronald Grigor Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988): 24- 25. 42 Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, 26.

26

He solidified this by placing a Miaphysite in the position of Catholicos of Kartli-Iberia,

Kireon I.43 However, complications arose when Kireon I actually changed his beliefs and

adopted Chalcedonic beliefs. This was the beginning of the end of the miaphysitic belief in

Georgia, as Kireon I was excommunicated by the Armenian Church at the Council of Dvin

(608). It is important to remember that at this time Armenia was still in charge of the

Georgian Church by way of Persian rule. The final acceptance of Chalcedonism in Georgia

would come courtesy of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Heraclius led a successful campaign

against both the Persians and Georgian King Stepanoz, and with Stepanpoz’s departure went

monophysitism. From here on out Georgia was a fully Chalcedonic territory and conformed

to the Orthodoxy of the Byzantine Church, while Armenia remained anti-Chalcedonic.44

Georgia became a place of refuge for Chalcedonic sympathizers in the region. Armenian

Chalcedonians fled to Georgia and founded churches there, and even more came to Georgia

when the Persian church in Ctesiphon prohibited Chalcedonism.45

One argument for why Armenia accepted miaphysitism is that it was an act to protect

themselves and their Christian tradition. Geographically speaking, Armenia was closer to the

Persian empire borders than Georgia, and as such the Persian empire was more of a threat to

the Armenians. Some sources suggest that accepting miaphysitism was the only thing that

Armenia could do to remain at peace with the Persians.46 Georgia did not have to take this

step because historically they had been closer to the Byzantines, and as such, were able to

align with them.

This visible split in allegiances, with Georgia aligning itself with the west, and CEU eTD Collection Armenia with the east is also reflected in the contemporary political atmosphere. Public

43 Ibid. 44 Ronald Grigor Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988): 26- 27. 45 Donald Rayfield , Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia (London: Reaktion Books, 2012): 53. 46 Donald Rayfield , Edge of Empires. 52.

27

opinion polls conducted in 2017 show that 45% of Georgians support their country joining

the European Union, compared to 30% of Armenians. When asked to choose which

economic union would best benefit the future economic development of their country 25% of

Armenians suggested joining the Eurasian Economic Union, led by Russia, compared to 6%

who stated Armenia should join the European Union, led by Western European countries.

When asked the same question, 10% of Georgians felt that their nation should join the

Eurasian Economic Union led by Russia, while 29% said they would rather join the European

Union, led by Western European countries. Respondents in Georgia and Armenia were also

asked to list the “main friend” of their country: 63% of Armenians listed Russia as the closest

ally of their country, compared to 6% of Georgians who said the same of Russia. 25% of

Georgians listed the United States as the main friend of their country, compared to just 1% of

Armenians who felt that the United States was their close ally. When asked who the main

enemy of their country was, 40% of Georgians listed Russia, compared to just 2% of

Armenians who saw Russia as a threat.47

The data from these public opinion polls show that the doctrinal schism that occured

in the late antiquity have had long term and long reaching effects. Armenia aligned itself with

the east as Russia, and Georgia with the west, manifested in the form of the United States and

the European Union, and these ties have persisted to the present day. Georgia and Armenia

have fundamentally different outlooks on who their allies are, and this has prevented a closer

relation to the two states and has contributed to the environment that has allowed for the

destruction and appropriation of Armenian culture to occur. CEU eTD Collection

47 Caucasus Research Resource Center, Caucasus Barometer 2017 Regional Dataset (Armenia and Georgia), 2017.

28

1.3.4: The Consequences of Armenia’s Miaphysitic Position, and the Role of Mazdaism

Armenia’s acceptance of a Miaphysitic position did come along with a certain amount

of privileges for them. Persia, which ruled much of the Caucasus at the time, was initially

insistent on its controlled territory adopting its belief system, Mazdaism, however, eventually

they came around and were accepting of Miaphysitism, as they believed it to be closer in

nature to their Mazdaism than Chalcedonism was.48 By 614, when Georgia had already

firmly reverted to a Chalcedonic position, the Persian overlords made it compulsory for all

churches in the Caucasus to accept and convert to the Armenian miaphysitic position. Along

with their religious beliefs, the Armenians also attempted to mandate the usage of Armenian

language in church services, which, had it been successful, could have destroyed Georgian

culture as we know it today. The Georgian tradition has a story that this Georgian culture and

language was saved by a group of Assyrian monks, led by Ione of Zedazeni, who came into

the territory of Georgia to ensure the Georgian language was continued to be used in church

services.49 The specifics of how these Assyrian monks persevere the usage of the Georgian

language in church services is not noted.

Several years later, beginning in the 630’s, Byzantine Emperor Heracles began to

seize territory in western Georgia. He mandated that services be delivered in Greek, and like

Persia, made an alliance with the Armenian church. He is believed to be of Armenian origins,

and established an agreement between Byzantium and the Armenian Church, once again

placing Armenia in charge of Georgia. He also soon began the persecution of non-

conforming Christians in the Georgian region.50 This put the Georgian Church in a precarious CEU eTD Collection position, and led them to reach out to one of the most powerful religious institutions in the

region for support: The Church of Antioch.

48 Matsaberidze, A Short History, 22. 49 Ibid., 23. 50 Ibid., 25-26.

29

The leaders of the Georgian Church decided to address the Patriarch of Antioch to

seek the official autocephalous status for the Georgian Church in order to prevent a foreign

church, such as Armenia, from ruling over it.51 Emperor Constantine Pogonatos called a

church council in Constantinople to discuss the matter, which eventually decided to grant the

Georgian Church autocephaly. The emperor also declared that the head of the Georgian

Church would now have the title of Patriarch, set borders for the church, and granted the

Georgian Church the right to bless their own myrrh locally. Ultimately the Unified

Patriarchate of Georgia was established, but would only exist until the middle of the eighth

century.52

A war broke out between Byzatium in 1021, and would carry on until 1054. Georgia

faced the issue of a portion of its population siding with Byzantium in this conflict, as they

saw Byzantium as the “pillar of Christianity”, and their rulers were seen as direct executors of

the will of God.53 At the same time, Byzantium declared the Georgian Church unorthodox

and heretical, and began persecuting Georgian monasteries and monks. Byzantium’s attitude

toward Georgia would abruptly change when the Seljuk Turks invaded in the second half of

the eleventh century and they needed a strong ally to their east.54 A truce was soon signed in

1054 which ended the persecutions of Georgian monks.

Georgia sent its king, Bagrat, and the highest church authority, Giorgi Matasmindeli,

to Constantinople to negotiate with Peter III, Patriarch of Antioch. Matasmindeli was

eventually able to convince Peter III to recognize the rights of the Patriarchate of the

Georgian Church, but unfortunately Peter died soon after and they would have to renegotiate CEU eTD Collection with his successor, Theodosius, who felt that the Georgian Church should be subordinate to

51 Ibid. 52 Ibid., 27. 53 Ibid., 36. 54 Ibid., 38.

30

Antioch.55 Theodosius’ argument was that only a church established by an apostle should be

autocephalous, and as the church in Antioch was established by Peter, it should rule over the

Georgian Church. This led Matasmindeli to convince Theodosius that the Georgian Church

was, in fact, established by the Apostle Andrew. Matasmindeli told Theodosius that Antioch

should actually be subordinate to Georgia as a result of Andrew being the first apostle to

Christ, thus superseding Peter in ranking. This was enough to convince Theodosius to

recognize the autocephaly of Georgia.56

This story of Georgian autocephalacy is also present in the 11th century text The Life

of George the Hagiorite. In this story, the Georgian church is autocephalous, but the Patriarch

of Antioch questions its validity, and George is tasked with defending the claim. To do so, he

delivers the following quote to the Patriarch:

“Most Reverend Lord, your words are: ‘I sit upon the throne of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.’ But we are the heirs and the flock of him who was first called –that is Andrew – and who called his brother; by him we were converted and enlightened. What is more, one of the twelve Holy Apostles, namely Simeon the Canaanite, is buried in our land, in Abkhazia, at a place called Nikopsia. Through these Holy Apostles we received baptism; and since we came to know the One God, we have never renounced him, nor has our nation ever turned aside into heretical ways...We stand firmly based on this foundation of Orthodoxy and on the precepts which were proclaimed by those Holy Apostles...Reverend Lord, it is also fitting that he who is called should submit to him who calls him, so that it behooves Peter to submit to Andrew, who called him – likewise it behooves Peter to submit to Andrew.”57

This quote is a definitive defense of all of Georgian Orthodoxy. It quells any

questions or doubts that may be had about the right of Georgia to be autocephalous while also

acknowledging Georgia’s long-standing commitment to following a strict Orthodox line CEU eTD Collection without heresy. It is possible that his statement about Georgia never turning towards heresy is

a nod to Georgia's strong Chalcedonic history, as opposed to the monophysitic ways of its

55 Matsaberidze, 38. 56 Ibid. 57 Wachtang Djobadze, Materials for the Study of Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs of Antioch on the Orontes (Louvain, Belgium: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1976), 56.

31

neighbor, Armenia. In an almost comical turn of events, George the Hagiorite goes so far as

to suggest that the Church of Antioch should actually be subordinate to the Georgian

Orthodox Church, while this was almost certainly a statement made out of jest rather than a

serious request, George does have a point, and is able to turn Antioch’s argument for

authority on its head.

The story reiterates the claims of the Apostle Andrew in Georgia, and by stating that

he supersedes even Peter, who the church in Antioch claims as their founder, the story puts

forth claims that the Georgian Orthodox Church is superior to that of nearly every Orthodox

church in the world. This story provides an example of ethnic election, in the sense that the

Georgian people and their form of Orthodoxy is the ascendant form of Christianity, and that

all other traditions should follow the example that the Georgians set. The privilege of ethnic

election is bestowed only upon those whose lifestyle is an expression of sacred values, and

the story of George the Hagiorite and Georgian autocephalacy, in concert with Georgia’s

Chalcedonic tradition, typifies this sanctified life and justifies Georgia’s ethnic election as a

chosen people.58 The origins of modern nationalism lie within the ancient stories of “chosen

people” and ethnic elections, and help to explain how Georgia’s christian history explain the

strong sense of religious nationalism that exists today.59

1.4: Long Lasting Effects of the Late Antique Period

The above mentioned events which precipitated from Armenia’s Miaphysitic position

shows the struggle the faced at nearly every turn with nearby neighbor Armenia. The

Armenian church was historically always seeking to establish dominance over the Georgian CEU eTD Collection Orthodox Church, and this is especially evidenced in the discussed cases of Armenian

attempts to remove the Georgian language from church services, and an attempt to establish

rule over the Georgian Orthodox Church as a whole through Persian authority. The Byzantine

58 Anthony Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 130. 59 Anthony Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 141.

32

aggressions in Georgia with Armenian ties led Georgia to push for autocephaly for their

church, which they were eventually granted. This instilled a sense of pride and independence

in Georgians that contributed to the creation of a national image rooted in an independent

Georgian Orthodox Church and left them averse to intrusions from foreign religious bodies,

particularly the Armenian Church. During this period the dominant idea emerged that to be

Georgian was to be a member of the Georgian Orthodox Church, and it was the evolution and

acceptance of this image that contributed to the complacency in the destruction of Armenian

cultural heritage sites in Georgia.

CEU eTD Collection

33

Chapter 2: The Destruction of Armenian Culture Sites in Georgia

Due to the presence of a thriving Armenian community, in the early 12th century an

Armenian diocese headquarter in Georgia’s capital of Tbilisi was established.60 In 1817 the

Armenian population reached its peak in Tbilisi, making up 75.6% of the population of the

capitol city.61 This number has gradually fallen each year and now is in the single digits. As

this number has fallen, Armenian cultural sites in Georgia have been erased and destroyed at

an alarming rate. This erasure of culture of a neighbouring state sets a dangerous precedent,

and this chapter will analyze cultural destruction that has occured in Georgia.

2.1: A Tradition of Cultural Destruction in the Caucasus

The South Caucasus region is no stranger to cultural destruction between its three

nations: Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan have been locked in a

brutal conflict in the Nagorno-Karabakh region since 1988 which has seen tens of thousands

of lives lost as well as the loss of thousands of cultural heritage sites. The Armenian cemetery

at Djulfa in the Azerbaijani enclave of Nakhichevan was once home to over 10,000

khachkars, but over the years thousands of them have been destroyed.62 In 2005 members of

the Azerbaijani military were filmed destroying Djulfa with sledgehammers and discarding

what they destroyed in the Araxes river. Satellite imagery showed that by 2009 the area was

CEU eTD Collection 60 Satenik Mkrtchian, “Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” Iran and the Caucasus, Vol. 13, No. 2 1 (2009), pp. 300. 61 Ibid. 62 Khachkars are Armenian crosses that are carved from stone by craftspeople, and are common in Armenia as well as locations containing members of the Armenian diaspora. They are an important facet of worship for Armenians and are often memorials for deceased members of the community. They are generally around 1.5 meters in height, with a cross in the middle on top of a background consisting of elements of the following: the sun, the wheel of eternity, or carvings of saints or animals. No two khachkars are the same, and they are representative of the craftsman who created it. UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Fifth Session, 19 November 2010, 9-10.

34

completely flattened and empty.63 Armenia has also taken to the destruction of Azerbaijani

cultural sites, with the destruction of the Aga-Dede mosque and cemetery in the Masis region

of Armenia.64 The destruction of culture between Armenia and Azerbaijan has been well

documented in scholarship, propelled by the ongoing war between the two nations, but what

has been relatively ignored is the destruction of Armenian cultural heritage sites in Georgia.

2.2: The History of the Armenian Community in Georgia

Historically Georgia has been a multicultural country but it has been slowly creeping

towards a homogenous state in the modern period, in part due to Soviet era population

policies. The history of the Armenians in Georgia dates to the late 6th, early 7th century, but

migration of Armenians to Georgia drastically increased after the fall of the Armenian

Bagratuni state, and the capture of their capital city of Ani by the Byzantines.65 In the late

12th century the Armenian community in Georgia had become so sizeable that the Armenian

Apostolic Church established a diocese in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital. The Armenians living

in Tbilisi at this time had full rights, and were active participants in Georgian political,

economic, and cultural life.66

Armenian migration persisted at a steady rate, and by the end of the 18th century

when out of the Georgian capital Tbilisi’s 20,000 citizens, 12,000 of them were Armenians.

By this time many Armenians were now second and third generation descendents of

immigrants, and were considered to be “locals.” This is a testament to how well integrated CEU eTD Collection

63 Dale Sawa, “Monumental Loss: Azerbaijan and the ‘Worst Cultural Genocide of the 21st century’” The Guardian, 1 March 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/mar/01/monumental-loss-azerbaijan- cultural-genocide-khachkars. 64 Tamir Taghizadeh, “Armenia is Wiping Out Azerbaijani Cultural Heritage” The Guardian, 2 September 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/02/armenia-is-wiping-out-azerbaijani-cultural-heritage. 65 Mkrtchian, “ Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” 299. 66 Ibid., 300.

35

the Armenian community in Georgia was at this time.67 This was also the period in which

many Armenian churches were being built in Georgia.

Armenian population numbers in Tbilisi peaked in 1817 at 75.6%, and from that point

on decreased. In the 1830’s it was at 65%, the 1850’s 54%, 1880’s 47.7%, and at the end of

the 19th century the Armenian community in Tbilisi made up only 36.4%.68 Despite having

declining population numbers, the Armenian community in Georgia still held an influential

role. Armenians in this period generally lived in cities and worked in trades and crafts, while

Georgians were mainly peasants and landowners. By the end of the 19th century 62% of

Tbilisi’s trade and industrial businesses were owned by Armenians, and throughout the 19th

century there were successive Armenian mayors in the Georgian capital city of Tbilisi, with

the home of one of these mayors, eventually becoming used as the City Hall of Tbilisi. The

personal library of one of these mayors would be donated to the city upon his death and

become the central Public Library of Tbilisi.69

The above examples showcase the importance of the Armenian community and

Georgia, and show how well ingrained the community has been in Tbilisi for centuries.

However, in more recent years the Armenian population numbers have continued to fall, and

with the fall in population has also come a natural fall in influence. In the 2014 census of

Georgia, Georgians make up 86.8% of the population and Armenians make up only 4.5%.70

The Armenian population has declined significantly, in the 1959 census they made up 11% of

the population. In fact, every ethnic minority has declined in population since the 1959

census with the exception of Azerbaijanis, while Georgians have been growing. They made CEU eTD Collection

67 Ibid. 68 Ibid.. 69 Ibid., 300-301. 70 National Statistics Office Georgia (GEOSTAT), “2014 General Population Census,” http://geostat.ge/cms/ site_images/_files/english/population/Census_release_ENG_2016.pdf.

36

up just 64% in the 1959 census compared to the 86.8% they represent today.71 For religion,

Georgian Orthodoxy makes up 83.4% while Islam makes up 10.7% and Armenian Apostolic

makes up 2.9%.72 These statistics show that Georgia is trending towards a homogeneous state

where the nation is made up of only those of their nationality and religion, but it should not

be ignored that historically Georgia has been host to a populous and thriving Armenian

community.

2.3: The Destruction of Armenian Ecclesiastical Sites in Tbilisi

Currently there are only two Armenian Apostolic Churches that are actively

functioning in Tbilisi, St. Gevorg and St. Echmiadzin, with the former being the centerpiece

of the Armenian community in Tbilisi. This is a drastic reduction from the pre-Soviet period

in Georgia when twenty-two of the Armenian churches in Tbilisi were destroyed, six were

Georgianized by Georgian Orthodox Church authorities, and seven remain in dire condition.

Before the rule of the Soviets in Georgia, Tandoyants Church was the centrepiece of

the Armenian community in Georgia. However, in recent years the roof has collapsed and

two of the four walls are nearly completely destroyed.73 Renovations began on the church in

3 November 2017, however they were not done by the Armenian Diocese of Georgia, but by

the Georgian Orthodox Church, who the had been gifted the property by the Georgian

government in 2016. In December 2015, before the church was transferred, the Armenian

Diocese of Georgia applied to the National Agency of Cultural Heritage Preservation in

Georgia to try and grant the church the status of immovable cultural monument, but they CEU eTD Collection

71 “Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 года. Национальный состав населения по республикам СССР” (“All-Union census of 1959. The national composition of the population in the republics of the USSR), http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_59.php?reg=8. 72 Ibid. 73 Hauer, Neil, and Bradley Jardine, “Georgian Orthodox Church takes aim at Armenian churches,” eurasianet.org, https://eurasianet.org/georgian-orthodox-church-takes-aim-at-armenian-churches.

37

never received feedback on the application.74 This caused controversy because the Armenian

Diocese of Georgia still claims the property as its own while the Georgian Orthodox Church

claims that they are the rightful owner of the property because nineteenth century documents

indicate that Tandoyants church stands on the grounds of a small Georgian church which was

destroyed by Persian forces in 1622.75 Georgian maps from 1913 and 1924 do cite the

building as an Armenian church, but it was closed in 1927 during the Soviet occupation by

the Tiflis Executive Committee Economic Sub-Division, and they used it as a movie theatre

and a yard keepers club.76 The Georgian Orthodox Church’s current plans are excavate and

clean the site before eventually building a new Georgian church on the ruins of the old one.77

Another example is the Shamkoretsots church, also in Tbilisi. This church was

damaged in a 1989 earthquake followed by subsequent fires in 2002 and 2012. The church

has sat in decay ever since, and was the largest religious building in Georgia until it was

usurped by the Sameba Cathedral in 2004.78 The Sameba Cathedral itself is the subject of a

major case of cultural erasure. Before the church was constructed as the home of the

Georgian Orthodox Church and the largest religious building in the country it was Khojivank

cemetery. This cemetery was was home to a multitude of famous Armenian writers and poets.

While the cemetery still exists in a much smaller capacity, much of it was razed during

construction for Sameba Cathedral, with hundreds of tombstones being desecrated and

destroyed.79

Another less extreme example is the Church of Surb Nshan in Tbilisi. It is located

very near a sixth century Georgian Orthodox Church and when the Armenian diocese made CEU eTD Collection

74 “Government of Georgia Transfers Tandoyants Temple to Orthodox Church,” tdi.ge, https://www.tdi.ge/en/news/495-government-georgia-transferred-tandoyants-temple-orthodox-church. 75 Ibid. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Hauer, Neil, and Bradley Jardine, “Georgian Orthodox Church takes aim at Armenian churches,” eurasianet.org, https://eurasianet.org/georgian-orthodox-church-takes-aim-at-armenian-churches. 79 Satenik Mkrtchian, “Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” Iran and the Caucasus, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2009), pp. 309.

38

an effort to clean up and restore the church several years ago the Georgia Orthodox Church

forbade them from making the necessary renovations.80 St. Gevorg or Mughni Church built in

1356 collapsed in 2009 and has sat in disrepair ever since. Yerevantsots St. Minas Church,

built in 1790, was privatised and repurposed for a use other than a church. The

Shamkhoretsonts St. Asdtvatsatsin Church and the Surb Nshan church are in danger of being

completely destroyed.81

2.4: The Destruction of Armenian Ecclesiastical Sites Outside of Tbilisi

The Nnjman Sourb Astvatzatzin Church exists in the village of Nakhshigora, which is

thirty kilometers west of Tbilisi. The church was built in 1835, but in 1996 the churches

Armenian inscriptions were replaced with Georgian ones.82 The Sourb Astvatzatzin Church

located in Shindis village, fifteen kilometers south of Tbilisi was constructed between 1866

and 1873, and was appropriated in 1998. The Armenian language inscription located above

the entrance to the church was removed and replaced with a Georgian iconographic

illustration.83 The St. Gevorg Monastery in the village of Telet was constructed in 1681, and

has had its Armenian inscriptions removed. One example is a khachkar engraving that is

present at the church, which had the Armenian lettering behind the cross removed in 1997,

while the cross was left intact.84 The church also suffered the loss of marble slabs featuring

Armenian language inscriptions, these were removed in 1990.85

80 Hauer, Neil, and Bradley Jardine, “Georgian Orthodox Church takes aim at Armenian churches,” eurasianet.org, https://eurasianet.org/georgian-orthodox-church-takes-aim-at-armenian-churches. 81 CEU eTD Collection “The Problem of the Return of Armenian Churches in Georgian to the Armenian Diocese in Georgia Issues Related to the Tandoyants Church,” armenianchurch.ge, http://armenianchurch.ge/en/news/articles/69-articles/ 1603-tandoyanc-eluit. 82 “Nnjman Sourb Astvatzatzin Church, Nakhshigora Village, 1835.” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Nnjman_2_E.htm. 83 “Sourb Astvatzatzin Church, Shindis Village, 1866-1873.” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Shindis_E_2.htm. 84 “St. Gevorg Monastery of Telet Village,” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Telet_E.htm 85 “St. Gevorg Monastery of Telet Village,” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Telet_E_2.htm

39

2.5: The Reaction of the Armenian Apostolic Church

The Armenian Apostolic Church Diocese of Georgia has spoken on the issue,

recently releasing a statement in which they expressed concern over the treatment of their

religious buildings in the territory of Georgia. They cite their own historical presence in

country, dating back to the 5th century and articulate the idea that the church is much more

than just a church, but the central point of a community. Since 1914 more than 400 Armenian

schools, culture and philanthropic institutions, and hospitals have been attached to Armenian

churches in Georgia and have provided services to the minority group.86

The Armenian diocese feels that due to the absence of laws on restitution in Georgia,

the Armenian Diocese of Georgia does not have the ability to protect its rights. They will

continue to appeal to the Georgian authorities to have their property returned and to make

sure no more of their places of worship will be demolished or ruined.The Armenian Diocese

of Georgia feels like the current situation in Georgia is comparable to the Bolshevik seizure

of churches in the 1920’s. On this they said: “before the eyes of the Georgian Armenians the

houses of faith built by our ancestors continue to be robbed” and “twice plundered: for the

first time during the Soviet occupation, and the second time, in independent Georgia.”87

In their statement, the Armenian Apostolic Church Diocese of Georgia talks about

one of the most important consequences of the cultural destruction that has befallen

Armenian churches in Georgia: “Because these architectural monuments are not only the

cultural heritage of Armenian people, but also the cultural heritage of our country, Georgia;

destruction of these monuments leads to the distortion of the historical portrait of CEU eTD Collection

86 “The Problem of the Return of Armenian Churches in Georgian to the Armenian Diocese in Georgia Issues 11 Related to the Tandoyants Church,” armenianchurch.ge, http://armenianchurch.ge/en/news/articles/69- articles/ 1603-tandoyanc-eluit. 87 Hauer, Neil, and Bradley Jardine, “Georgian Orthodox Church takes aim at Armenian churches,” eurasianet.org, https://eurasianet.org/georgian-orthodox-church-takes-aim-at-armenian-churches.

40

multinational Georgia.”88 As shown by the population statistics in this chapter, Armenians are

a historically well established ethnic minority in Georgia, and Georgia as a whole has not had

a racially homogenous past, and pushing the narrative that Georgia is, and always has been

exclusively a country of Georgians and Georgian Orthodox parishioners, and any other

narrative would be a manipulation of the collective memory.

Another important point is brought up in the above quote from the Armenian

Apostolic Church Diocese of Georgia, and that is while the heritage of Armenians in Georgia

is Armenian, the fact remains that their citizenship is Georgian. Whether the Georgian

Orthodox Church and Georgian government like it or not, these Armenian churches that have

been built in Georgia are part of the Georgian story, and anything else would be a disservice

to the Georgian historical narrative.

2.6: The Ruinous Effects of Cultural Destruction

The destruction of cultural heritage has far reaching negative effects throughout

society, and is occuring in every corner of the globe, from the destruction of tombs and

temples by Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East, to the eradication of native culture

and communities in the United States. Just because the destruction and appropriation of

Armenian cultural heritage sites is happening on a smaller scale than the more notable

examples, and is even overshadowed in the South Caucasus region by the mutual carnage

being carried out by Azerbaijan and Armenia does not mean it should be ignored and allowed CEU eTD Collection to acquiesce. The senseless loss of any cultural heritage in the name of reshaping a national

image should be prevented at all costs, with the parties responsible being held accountable.

88 “The Problem of the Return of Armenian Churches in Georgian to the Armenian Diocese in Georgia Issues Related to the Tandoyants Church,” armenianchurch.ge, http://armenianchurch.ge/en/news/articles/69-articles/ 1603-tandoyanc-eluit.

41

Chapter 3: Cultural Heritage Law

The aim of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) is to strengthen the foundations of lasting peace through cooperation in

education, science, culture, communication, and information, and through this mission they

have created many documents and bilateral agreements to protect culture all around the

world.89 Several of these documents are directly relevant to the destruction of Armenian

ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites in Georgia, with both Georgia and Armenia being

signatory parties. By ignoring aspects of these agreements in order to purport the image of a

homogeneous nation of Georgian Orthodoxy, Georgia is not contributing to strengthening the

foundation of lasting peace in the Caucasus. Additionally, through UNESCO initiatives, both

Georgia and Armenia have developed their own cultural heritage laws, which will also be

analyzed in this section. If cultural heritage laws continue to be allowed to be ignored en

masse there will be a great loss of cultural heritage throughout the world, with countries and

majority ethnic groups being able to shape false narratives of their country’s history in order

to aid their contemporary agendas.

3.1: International Conventions

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was adopted in 1966 and put

into force in 1976, and Georgia both ratified it in 1994. The relevant passage from the

International Convention on Civil and Political Rights comes in Article 27, which says that

“In those states in which ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to

CEU eTD Collection such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their

group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess or protect their own religion, or to use their own

89 UNESCO, UNESCO in Brief - Mission and Mandate, unesco.org, https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing- unesco.

42

language.”90 The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic,

Religious, and Linguistic Minorities was adopted in 1992. Article 2.1 of the Declaration on

the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities

states that “persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities have the

right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and protect their own religion, and to use their

own language, in private and in public, freely and without intervention or any form of

discrimination” and Article 4.1 states that “States shall take measures required to ensure the

persons belonging to minorities may exercise full and effectively all of their human rights and

fundamental freedoms without any discrimination, and in full equality before the law.”91 The

Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and

Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property was brought into force in 1970, and Georgia

became a signatory party with a notice of succession in 1992. This convention defined what

cultural property is, and how it must be protected.

Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects the

right of minorities to enjoy their own culture, and that is currently not being allowed for

Armenians in Georgia. Armenians cannot enjoy their culture if their churches and cemeteries

are being destroyed or stolen and then being turned into churches of a completely different

denomination.

Article 2.1 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic,

Religious, and Linguistic Minorities covers similar rights, adding that minorities have the

right to enjoy their culture and practice their religion free from any discrimination. The fact CEU eTD Collection that this is occurring to minority churches in Georgia and not to any of the churches of the

90 United Nations, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966. 91 United Nations, Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992.

43

majority shows that this is discrimination, and that the Armenian minority is not able to enjoy

their culture and practice their religion free from discrimination.

Article 4.1 of the same convention states that states must take measures to ensure that

minorities are free from discrimination, and Georgia is not currently creating this sort of

environment for its minorities. In addition to the churches and other cultural heritage sites of

the Armenian minority being appropriated and destroyed, the Georgian constitution, which

entered into force in 1995, states that the Georgian Orthodox Church does not have to pay

any taxes on profits made from selling religious products, taxes on activities related to the

construction, restoration, or maintenance of their property, or property tax on church

buildings. This is a privilege which is only afforded to the Georgian Orthodox Church and

not to the Armenian Apostolic Church or any of the other religious minorities in Georgia.92

This law directly inhibits religious minorities in Georgia from prospering, as they have a

huge financial disadvantage compared to the Georgian Orthodox Church.

In Article 1 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit

Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, cultural property is defined

as being either secular or religious in nature and is designated by a state as having importance

to them in terms of archeology, prehistory, history, literature, art, or science. More

specifically, it covers property related to the lives of national leaders, thinkers, scientists and

artists, as well as events of national importance.93 The construction of the Holy Trinity

Cathedral by Georgian authorities, which was built on the grounds of the Armenian cemetery

Khojivank almost certainly violated this article, as the remains of countless Armenians were CEU eTD Collection scattered around the construction site before being removed all at once overnight.94

92 “Court Rules Privileges for Georgian Orthodox Church Unconstitutional” O-C Media, https://oc- media.org/court-rules-privileges-for-georgian-orthodox-church-unconstitutional/. 93 United Nations, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970. 94 Julia Hakobyan, “Havlabar: Armenian Community in Tbilisi Pays the Price of Urbanization,” armenianow.com. https://www.armenianow.com/features/7696/havlabar_armenian_community_in_tbi.

44

Article 1 of the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit

Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property also defines cultural property

as engravings or statuary art in any material.95 As has previously mentioned, there have been

many examples of Armenian language engraving being completely removed from Armenian

churches in Georgia. This includes the Sourb Astvatzatzin Church in Shindis village, which

had its engraving removed and replaced with Georgian iconographic artwork, and Nnjman

Sourb Astvatzatzin Church in the village of Nakhshigora which had its Armenian engravings

removed and replaced with Georgian ones.96

Article 2 establishes that the transfer of ownership of cultural property is one of the

integral causes of impoverishment of cultural heritage of the countries of origin of such

property, and that as a result, the signatory parties agree to oppose the practice of transfer of

ownership of cultural property. The country of origin of the cultural heritage in this case is

Georgia, but Armenian in heritage, as they were built by ethnic Armenians within the

territory of Georgia. Additionally, as Georgia is a signatory party to this convention, the

transfer of ownership of the Tandoyants Surb Astvatsatsin to the Georgian Orthodox Church

would represent a breach of the convention. While the cultural heritage sites were created by

Armenians who lived permanently in Georgia, even if they had been constructed by foreign

nationals they would be covered by Article 4, which states that cultural property of

importance to the state created within the territory of the state by foreign nationals still

constitutes protected cultural heritage.97This analysis of UNESCO shows that the Georgian

state is unjustly allowing for the destruction of Armenian culture within their borders. The CEU eTD Collection

95 United Nations, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970. 96 “Nnjman Sourb Astvatzatzin Church, Nakhshigora Village, 1835.” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Nnjman_2_E.htm. “Sourb Astvatzatzin Church, Shindis Village, 1866- 1873.” Research on Armenian Architecture - raa.am, http://www.raa.am/Jard/Georgia/Shindis_E_2.htm. 97 United Nations, Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1970.

45

history of the Armenians and the contributions that they have made to Georgian society

should not be erased simply because they do not represent as large of a percentage of the

population as they once did.

3.2: Domestic Laws

Through UNESCO initiatives, countries around the world, including Georgia and Armenia,

have established their own local cultural heritage laws, and have established ministries and

offices in their countries to monitor and preserve cultural heritage within their borders.

3.2.1: Georgian Law

Similarly to the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit

Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, the Law of Georgia on

Cultural Heritage also provides a definition for cultural heritage, albeit with a wider scope.

This document was brought into force in 2007, and replaced the 1999 Law of Georgia on

Cultural Heritage Protection, which became invalid once this document was activated.

Article 3 of the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage defines cultural heritage as any kind of

architectural, artistic, urban planning, agricultural, archeological, anthropological,

ethnographic, or monumental impact related to the technological development of immovable

or movable objects of artistic, aesthetic, historical, or memorial value. It also covers historical

settings related to history, faith and tradition, and the past and present civilizations of the

country.98 This is directly relevant to the case of Armenian cultural heritage in Georgia, as it

would appear to be granted the status of cultural heritage based on the provided definition.

The vast decrease in the number of Armenians living in Georgia throughout history would CEU eTD Collection not appear to affect the status of the cultural heritage that they created in Georgia, because the

law notes that historical settings related to past civilizations are also pertinent to the law. This

point is of the utmost importance, because it provides protection for cultural heritage created

98 Article 3, Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007.

46

by Armenian communities that are no longer present in Georgia, but it appears that this facet

of the law is being ignored by the Georgian government.

While the Armenian ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites do constitute “cultural

heritage” per the definition of both the United Nations and Georgia, perhaps the more

important status to achieve is that of “immovable or movable objects of cultural heritage” and

“area of immovable cultural property” as defined in the Law of Georgia on Cultural

Heritage. An immovable object of cultural heritage is an object of cultural heritage which has

been granted cultural heritage status in accordance with the procedures of this law, and an

area of immovable cultural property is a land plot attached to immovable cultural property.99

The administrative body that is responsible for granting this status is the Cultural Heritage

Protection Council, which is an advisory body of the Ministry of Culture and Monument

Protection of Georgia.100

The basis for granting cultural heritage status to a property is its historical or cultural

value, related to its antiquity, uniqueness or authenticity.101 This process came to fruition for

the Armenian Orthodox Church Diocese of Georgia in the case of the Tandoyants Surb

Astvatsatsin Church in Tbilisi. The Diocese applied to have the church listed as an

immovable cultural monument in December of 2015. They were told that the procedures for

granting the church the status of immovable cultural monument would be initiated, and that

the Armenian Apostolic Church would be informed regarding the status of the process,

however, they were never informed further regarding their application.102 Conversely, a

representative of the Georgian Orthodox Church submitted an application with the National CEU eTD Collection Agency of Public Registry to register the church as property of the Georgian Orthodox

99Ibid. 100Article 4, Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007. 101 Article 15, Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007. 102 “Government of Georgia Transfers Tandoyants Temple to Orthodox Church,” tdi.ge, https://www.tdi.ge/en/ 4 news/495-government-georgia-transferred-tandoyants-temple-orthodox-church.

47

Church based on historical sources and maps that showed that there was at one point a

Georgian Orthodox Church on the land where the Armenian church stands today.103 This

represents a major flaw in the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage: that a third party can

circumvent the process outlined to grant the status of cultural monument, and go through an

office that does not have a focus on cultural preservation in order to gain legal ownership and

effectively lock out the Armenian diocese from an Armenian church in this case.

All of this is contradictory to Article 23 of the Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage,

which states that it is only permissible to use cultural property in such a way that does not

damage or post a threat to it, or diminish its cultural or historical value, or change its

authentic elements or deteriorate its perception.104 By turning an existing Armenian church

into a Georgian church, the Georgian Orthodox Church is both changing its authentic

elements and deteriorating its perception. Violations of this article can also be seen in the

previously detailed cases of the erasure of Armenian cultural markers from ecclesiastical

sites. As far as enforcement goes, the document only notes that any deliberate action taken

against cultural property that may threaten or destroy the property will result in criminal

liability in accordance with procedures established by Georgian legislation.105 The unique

relationship that the Georgian government shares with the Georgian Orthodox Church, and

that Georgian society shares with religious nationalism is the impetus of this destruction of

Armenian ecclesiastical heritage sites, and prevents any meaningful resolution to the problem

of appropriation of heritage sites.

3.2.2: Armenian Law CEU eTD Collection The relevant sections from the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Intangible Cultural

Heritage, which was adopted in 2009, pertain to the cultural heritage that is located outside of

103 Ibid. 104 Article 23, Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007. 105 Article 23, Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007.

48

their national borders. Article 16 states that Armenian intangible cultural heritage in foreign

states will be protected in accordance with interstate treaties of Armenia and within the

frameworks of legislation of the country concerned, as well within the principles and of

relevant international laws. UNESCO states that traditional craftsmanship is protected under

the definition of intangible cultural heritage, and Armenian engravings on churches and

tombstones would appear to fall under intangible cultural heritage.106 Specifically, at the fifth

session of the Intergovernmental Committee in Kenya in 2010 Armenian Khachkars were

inscribed on UNESCO’s representative list of intangible cultural heritage.107 It has already

been established that the Armenian ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites should be protected

under both UNESCO law and Georgian law, and being covered under Armenian law should

only further that protection.

3.3: Large Scale Violations of Cultural Heritage Laws

The analysis of relevant legal codes in this section, both bilateral international

agreements and Georgian and Armenian laws, has shown that the destruction of Armenian

ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites in Georgia represents violations of cultural heritage

protection laws. This widespread and unchecked appropriation and destruction should by no

means be allowed to continue, with both the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Georgian

State being held accountable. One nation’s culture should not be valued over another,

regardless of whether or not the culture is derivative of a diaspora or minority community.

Additionally, the reshaping of a national image in order to exclude the contributions of one

ethnic group comes with long lasting negative effects and sets a dangerous precedent. CEU eTD Collection It has already been established that the church is the most trusted institution in the

country amongst Georgian citizens, which include politicians making policy decisions

106 UNESCO, Identifying and Inventorying Intangible Cultural Heritage, unesco.org, https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf. 107 UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Fifth Session, 19 November 2010, 9-10.

49

regarding cultural destruction, but a 2002 concordant between the Georgian Orthodox Church

and the State further emphasizes the importance of the church in Georgia. This concordant

gives the patriarch immunity and gives the church a unique consultative role in the

government.108 While the church does not have a direct, concrete role in the Georgian

government, it does share a close relationship with the government that is a result of the

unique form of religious nationalism that exists in Georgia, in part do the protectorate role

that Georgian society associates with the church, and it is this unique religious nationalism

and relation between church and state in Georgia that has facilitated the environment which

has allowed for the destruction of Armenian ecclesiastical cultural heritage sites in Georgia.

CEU eTD Collection

108 U.S. Department of State, Georgia: International Religious Freedom Report, 2007.

50

Chapter 4: Nationalism as an Explanation

In the strongest form of religious nationalism the concepts of religion and national

boundaries are completely intertwined, with a nation being made up solely of members of the

majority religion, in this case, Georgian Orthodoxy.109 Seeing religion and nationalism as

intertwined can also be seen in national myths and symbols that make up the iconic

representation of the nation.110 The narrative of the nation is told and retold through national

histories, literature, and popular culture, and these provide a set of stories, images, historical

events, and national symbols which present the national image of a state as unified and

essential.111 These stories play an integral role in shaping the image of a nation and

presenting a version of that nation that its people can be proud of. In the case of Georgia this

national image is overwhelmingly based in Christianity and Georgia’s history as an orthodox

nation. It is this process that allowed for a uniquely religious form of nationalism to emerge

in Georgia, which would ultimately contribute to the destruction of culture within Georgia

that does not fit the national image, and has resulted in the erasure of Armenian cultural

heritage sites.

4.1: National Origin Myths

The origin myth of a nation often places its material in a mythic time and provides an

alternative history. Meanwhile, factual history is often ignored to the benefit of the

foundational myth, as it better serves the image of the nation that is being attempted to be

crafted.112 Examples of this can be seen in the origin myths of both Georgia and Armenia.

CEU eTD Collection

109 Rogers Brubaker, “Religion and Nationalism: Four Approaches” Nations and Nationalism 18 (1), 2012, pp.1-20. 110Ibid.,12. 111 David McCrone, The Sociology of Nationalism, (London: Routledge, 1998), 52. 112 Ibid., 52.

51

4.1.1: Georgian Origin Myth

One popular story for the origin of the Georgian nation utterly relates to religion. The

tradition holds that when God was parceling out the countries of the world to all of the

different nationalities, he forgot about the Georgians. Despite this, the Georgians invited God

to a party, where they spent the whole night sharing wine and song. God had such a great

time with the Georgians that he decided that he would give the Georgians the one spot on

earth that he reserved for himself, and this spot was in the valley and hills south of the

Caucasus Mountains, in the area that we today know to be the Republic of Georgia.113

Obviously there is no truth to this origin myth, as a timeline in which God would be assigning

territory to the nationalities of the world does not logistically make sense, but that does not

detract from the importance of the narrative from a collective memory perspective. This story

instills the idea that Georgians have a special relationship with God, more special than any

other people in the world, because God so loved the Georgians that he gifted them the very

best land on the planet, that he had been saving for himself. The narrative also places the

physical land on which Georgia resides on a higher pedestal than any other land on the

planet. In the origin myth, this land is said to be the best in the world, that God had set aside

for himself. Portraying the land in this fashion instills an added sense of pride, and in the

process, perhaps making those who reside on it more inclined to defend it. Additionally,

depicting the land of a nation in a sacred way contributes to making the nationalism of a state

religious.

Another, less Christian origin myth for Georgia, which is found in Kartlis CEU eTD Collection Tskhovreba, asserts that the Armenians, Georgians, and a number of other Caucasian ethnic

groups all came from one father, T’orgom, son of T’iras, son of Gamer, son of Japheth, son

of Noah. After the Tower of Babel fell, T’orgom settled down between the Masis and Aragats

113 Ronald Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), 3.

52

mountains, but this land did not suffice for all of his children, so he extended the boundaries

to all of what we know to be the Caucasus region today. These Georgian origin myths

exemplify Anthony Smith’s idea that from ‘whence we came’ is central to the definition of

‘who we are.’114 Through its myths Georgia shows that it comes from a position of favor with

God, as God's chosen people, and that same position is visible within the destruction of

Armenian cultural heritage sites in Georgia today. Today, Georgian Orthodoxy, as opposed to

Armenian Apostolicy, is the chosen religion of the nation, and therefore it is Georgian

Orthodoxy that will be represented through architecture and land in Georgia. Even the

Chalcedonic controversy contributes to this image of Georgian Orthodoxy being chosen over

Armenian Apostolicy, since Georgia ultimately chose Chalcedonism as opposed to

Armenia’s choosing of monophysitism. Georgia was in a position of Orthodoxy, being in line

with the church leadership in Byzantium while Armenia was deemed heretical. Christian-

centric origin myths in Georgia have played an essential role in the development of religious

nationalism in Georgia, and embody the idea that ethnic Georgians and Georgian Orthodoxy

represent the only admissible milieu in Georgia today.

4.1.2: Armenian Origin Myth

While the Armenians do not have an origin myth that is directly as Christian-focused

as the Georgians, one of their central national myths is directly connected to that of the

Georgians. One of the sons of T’orgom, the father of the Caucasian people in the Georgian

myth, was Hayk, who becomes one of, if not the central figure in Armenian mythology. Hayk

was a beautiful giant with curly hair and bright eyes who was also a very powerful warrior. CEU eTD Collection Hayk was noted to be a proponent of independence, and he led his people from Nimrod, a

town that was destroyed by biblical floods sent by God in the Old Testament, to mountains of

114 Anthony Smith, National Identity, (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 22.

53

Armenia, where they began to rule over the native population.115 Hayk then went on to

defend Armenia from invaders numerous times throughout his lifetime.

Hayk is an incredibly important figure in the Armenian national story, as the word

that Armenians use to refer to themselves is Hay, and their country, Hayastan, are both

derivatives of Hayk.116 This story may not be as directly religious as the Georgian tale, but

there is still significant Christian symbolism to analyze. Hayk is representing a character

similar to Moses in this myth, in the sense that he is delivering his people from a troubled,

heretical area, Nimrod, to a safe land of refuge in Armenia. This mirrors what Moses does in

the book of Exodus, where he leads the Jews out of the heretical Egypt, and across the Red

Sea to their promised land.117 This biblical story was likely the inspiration for the myth of

Hayk. While this story of Hayk lacks in direct religious elements, it does contain many hints

of ethnic election and morality. In the story, Hayk and the Armenians are the “chosen people”

in the sense that Hayk leads them safely to a new land where they rule over the previous

occupants of this land. This ethnic election comes with a moral obligation on behalf of the

Armenians, that they have been chosen that they are a sanctified people who will set a moral

example for which their subjects, in this case the native inhabitants should live.118 Despite the

lack of the direct element of God choosing the Armenians, in the sense that he chose the

Georgians in the Georgian origin myth, the same message of being chosen is conveyed

through the ethnic election in the Armenian myth.

4.2: Further Georgian National Myths and Symbols

This is prominent in Georgia as many of the important national myths are coated in CEU eTD Collection Christian imagery and language. This can especially be seen in the stories of David the

Builder, an 12th century ruler and perhaps the most important ruler in Georgian history. He is

115 John MacCulloch, ed. The Mythology of All Races (Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1925), 64. 116 Ibid., 65. 117 Exodus 3:1-8. 118 Anthony Smith, Myths and Memories of the Nation, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 130.

54

responsible for expelling the Seljuk Turks and unifying Georgia into roughly the territory we

know it as today. After defeating them in battle several times he refused to pay taxes to the

Seljuks and mandating his people return to their villages from the mountains, where they had

been hiding to avoid the Seljuks who had been violently pillaging villages. He re-established

royal authority over the church and invited foreigners, including Armenians, to settle in

Georgia to help fight the Seljuks.119 In 1121 David the Builder led his army into battle against

the Seljuks at Didgori and defeated them, thus unifying Georgia and bringing an end to

Muslim rule over the state. Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, had been a Muslim town for over four

hundred years until David the Builder recaptured it.120 This story shows that in the Georgian

tradition the event which unified their nation is a struggle between Christian and Muslim,

with Christianity prevailing and saving the nation. This intertwines Christianity as an

important part of the Georgian story.

Even once narratives have established Georgia as a Christian nation, there are yet

other narratives that codify Georgian Christianity as superior to other forms of Christianity.

An example of this is Georgia the Hagiorite, an 11th century Georgian monk. George the

Hagiorite became an important figure of Georgian religious nationalism by defending a group

of Georgian monks who had been accused of committing heresies by their Greek counterparts

at the Monastery of the Holy Symeon. The Greek monks had written to the Patriarch in

Antioch and asked him to “rescue us from these vain and alien men, for in our monastery

there are about sixty men who call themselves Georgians, but we do not know as to what

their intentions are or what their religion is.”121 In reality, the Greek monks had collaborated CEU eTD Collection to get the Georgian monks expelled from the church simply because of a personal grudge for

119 Ronald Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1994), 34-35. 120 Ibid., 36. 121 Wachtang Djobadze, Materials for the Study of Georgian Monasteries in the Western Environs of Antioch on the Orontes (Louvain, Belgium: Imprimerie Orientaliste, 1976), 53.

55

these specific Georgian monks rather than any sort of heresy, as their letter had originally

alleged. This personal grudge was the result of the actions of a Georgian priest, who

sometime before had visited the Monastery of the Holy Symeon and officiated the liturgy in

improper garb, wearing only rawhide sandals and a short tunic rather than the proper priestly

garment. The Greek monks admitted this to the Patriarch, who rightly seeing that this was a

senseless argument being made by the Greek monks, called for George the Hagiorite to be

brought in to explain Georgian Orthodoxy, and to dispel and questions about Georgian’s

devotion to Orthodoxy.122

George the Hagiorite went on to explain Georgia’s perception of Orthodoxy to the

Patriarch, to which the Patriarch responded: “Blessed be the Lord: certain men were accusing

the

Georgians of shortcomings, but see now, they are in many respects above us, and above all in

regard to the immaculacy of their church which they hold supreme.” According to the story

all of the bishops and eminences agreed with the Patriarch in his praising of the Georgian

Orthodox Church, and that the accusatory Greek monks should be punished severely. George

the Hagiorite stepped in and implored that they not be punished, but forgiven, to which the

Patriarch agreed.123 This passage is particularly clear in terms of being Georgian nationalistic

propaganda. The quote from the preacher establishes that Georgia’s version is superior to all

other forms of Christianity, even that of the patriarch. At the same time, the passage is also

showing Georgians to be a merciful and “christlike” people because once being told that the

accusatory monks would be punished, George the Hagiorite does not allow this to happen, CEU eTD Collection instead he expresses compassion.

On a whole, The Life of George the Hagiorite is a very nationalistic text. The whole

point

122Ibid., 52-54. 123 Ibid., 52-54.

56

of the text appears to be to promote Georgian monastic life over all other monastic traditions.

In this story George the Hagiorite is written to be the supreme example of monastic life, and

on top of that he completely dispels false accusations by a group of Greek monks, belittling

them in the process. In imploring that the Greek monks be excused from punishment, George

is being portrayed as a benevolent figure who “turns the other cheek” and who does not wish

any harm on his enemies. In summation, The Life of George the Hagiorite delivers a heavily

nationalistic message propagating the idea of Georgian superiority in Orthodoxy to all other

churches.

4.3: Other Facets of Nationalism at Play

While religious nationalism is the most important variant of nationalism at play, there

are several other topics to consider. These include the relationship between architecture and

language with nationalism, as well as nationalistic tendencies brought on by Russian

incursions in the post-Soviet period.

4.3.1: Architecture and Nationalism

Architecture allows for the the shaping of the public sphere in the into the prefered

image of the nation, and can be used to elicit national pride in this idea of the nation that is

being portrayed through architecture.124 In Georgia, this manifests itself in the form of

Georgian Orthodox churches, both old and new. By slowing removing Armenian churches

from the landscape of Georgia, and replacing each one with a Georgian church, the image of

the country is being transformed into that of a homogenous, Orthodox state, with its

Armenian history being forgotten and erased. Architecture also represents the will of a CEU eTD Collection community, and what image they want to present of their community. In Georgia, it has

become clear that the image that is desired to be presented is that of a Georgian Orthodox

nation, rather than one with a rich history of Armenian heritage.

124 Yael Tamir, Why Nationalism, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), 74.

57

4.3.2: Language and Nationalism

A common language is of integral importance to the national image of a state as it is

the people’s highest possible means of expression. It is also the purest product of national

creativeness and is one of the clearest and most visible signs of national unity.125 The origin

of both the Georgian and Armenian alphabets is another issue which is a point of contention

between the two communities, and as the development of languages lays the basis for

national consciousness, just having two distinct scripts represents a split between Georgia and

Armenia.126 According to the narrative present in the Armenian tradition, the linguist and

theologian Mesrop Mashtots is the creator of both the Georgian and Armenian languages. In

this narrative, Mashtots created the Armenian alphabet in the early 5th century in order to

combat Mazdaistic propaganda in Armenia, and once he had completed this task he set out to

create alphabets for the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians. This narrative is not agreed

upon by Georgian scholarship. Eighth century Georgian historian Leonti Mroveli claimed

that a servant of Georgian King Parnavasi created the alphabet, while the modern Georgian

scholar Ivane Javakhishvili asserted that the Georgian alphabet goes back to the Phoenician-

Semitic-Aramaic cultural world, and as such is completely unrelated to the Armenian script

and the work of Mesrop Mashtots.127 Considering how important language as a marker of

national culture, it is understandable why there is a debate between Georgian and Armenian

scholarship over the origins of the countries’ respective alphabets. During the Chalcedonian

controversy period in which Armenia’s Mazdaistic loyalty had placed them in a position of

ecclesiastical power over Georgia, they had attempted to mandate the use of the Armenian CEU eTD Collection language and alphabet in Georgia, but were ultimately unsuccessful, with the use of the

125 Rudolf Rocker, Nationalism and Culture, (Montreal: Black Rose Books,1998), 277. 126 David McCrone, The Sociology of Nationalism, (London: Routledge, 1998), 53. 127 Ronald Suny, The Making of the Georgian Nation, (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1994), 22-23.

58

Georgian language being restored.128 This interaction left the Georgians averse to the

Armenian script, and admitting that the language and alphabet that they had fought to

preserve and use in the face of an Armenian incursion was actually the invention of the

Armenians was simply not an option. In this case, the actual origins of the Georgian script are

not important, as actual history is often forgotten in favor of a foundational narrative, and as

language is one of the most important markers of community and national image, it is

important to the Georgian national narrative that they control the story surrounding the

origins of their language.129 This debate does however typify another arena in which Armenia

has attempted to assert power and authority over Georgia, leaving Georgia less receptive to

Armenian culture within their borders.

4.3.3: Georgian Precedent for Establishing a Historical Narrative of a Minority Group

as “Outsiders”

One of the main methods implemented by the Georgian Orthodox Church to justify

the appropriation and transfer of property of Armenian churches is by claiming that while the

land may be an Armenian church in its current form, at one point throughout the longue

durée it was once a Georgian church, or the land of a Georgian.130 This method has a

historical precedent within the history of minority relations in Georgia, as it was used to

justify the proposed population transfer of Georgia’s Abkhazian minority in the 1940’s and

1950’s.

Like the Armenians, the Abkhazians are ethnographically different from the CEU eTD Collection Georgians. They speak Abkhazian, which is in the North Caucasus language family with

Circassian and Ubykh, while Georgian is a part of the Kartvelian tree with Mingrelian, Laz

128 Mamuka Matsaberidze, ed, A Short History of the Georgian Church (New York: Troitsa, 2014), 22. 129 David McCrone, The Sociology of Nationalism, (London: Routledge, 1998), 53. 130 “Government of Georgia Transfers Tandoyants Temple to Orthodox Church,” tdi.ge, https://www.tdi.ge/en/ 4 news/495-government-georgia-transferred-tandoyants-temple-orthodox-church.

59

and Svan.131 Religion is incredibly important in Georgia and the Caucasus as a whole, and

this is another ethnographic area in which the Georgians and Abkhazians greatly differ.

Abkhazians are 60% Christian, 16% Muslim, 8% atheist, 5% pagan, 3% local traditional

religion, and 1% Jehovah’s Witnesses, while Georgians are 83.4% Eastern Orthodox

Christian, 10.7% Muslim, 3.9% Armenian Apostolic, and 0.5% Catholic.132 Abkhazian

Christianity is a mix of Armenian Apostolic Christianity and Abkhazian Orthodox

Christianity, a church which is not recognize by other Eastern Orthodox Churches, while the

christianity in Georgia is exclusively Georgian Orthodox. The fact that Abkhazian

Christianity is made up of Abkhazian Orthodox Christianity and Armenian Apostolic

Christianity, two churches with which the Georgian Orthodox Church has had doctrinal

conflict with, contributes to the stark difference between Georgians and Abkhazians which

has made the absorption of one into the other difficult.

In 1949, Ingoroq’va, a Georgian scholar, wrote that based on toponyms he had

studied in Abkhazia, the Abkhazians that are alluded to in medieval Georgian sources were

actually Kartvelians (Georgians), and they had no affiliation to today's Abkhazians, who he

claimed came in the 17th century.133 By doing this, he basically erased any claims that

Abkhazians had to their land and property, as Georgia could claim that it was actually

historically the property of Georgians. The context within which Ingoroq’va was writing is

also important. At the time, it was widely known that Stalin was planning to deport ethnic

Abkhazians to Kazakhstan and Siberia, so Ingoroq’va could have been writing to provide

academic justification for the removal of Abkhazians from “Georgian lands.”134 CEU eTD Collection

131 George Hewitt, The Abkhazians: A Handbook (New York: St. Martin Press, 1998), 13. 132 Alexander Krylov, “Features of Religious Consciousness in Modern Abkhazia,” Credo Press, http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=fresh&id=188. 133 Scott Littlefield, “Citizenship, Identity and Foreign Policy: The Contradictions and Consequences of Russia’s Passport Distribution in the Separatist Regions of Georgia,” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 61, No. 8 (2009), 1466. 134 George Hewitt, The Abkhazians: A Handbook (New York: St. Martin Press, 1998), 14-15.

60

This narrative bears close resemblance to that which is being deployed in the

contemporary period against the Armenian minority community in Georgia, and provides a

historical precedent for the debasement of the legitimacy of a minority groups claim to

territory in Georgia through attempting to shape the national image to make it appear as if

Georgia is, and always has been the land soley of Georgians.

4.3.4: Modern Incursions in Georgia

Georgia has not known total peace and sanctity since becoming independent of the

Soviet Union in 1991, and the desire of Georgia to keep its territory free from any outside

influence also contributes to the national image, and to the apparent attempt to portray

Georgia as a homogenous state. The land of a nation itself is often seen as cultural before it is

seen as natural, and as a result, people often have a spectacular since of pride in the landscape

of their nation.135 A people who have a great sense of pride in their land and nation, and

Georgians do, as is illustrated in the above detailed myths, are very averse to incursions into

their land, and unfortunately Georgia has suffered from a great deal of this during their period

of independence.

In 1992, the year following Georgia’s independence, they faced the Georgian-Abkhaz

war, a brutal war with the Georgian sectionalist territory of Abkhazia, in which Russia aided

the Abkhazians.136 A ceasefire was eventually signed in 1993, but immediately thereafter, a

new incursion would commence in Georgia: the issuance of Russian passports to Georgian

citizens residing in Abkhazia. While the war ended with Abkhazia still being internationally

recognized as part of Georgia, the Abkhazian people denied this, and along with it Georgian CEU eTD Collection

135 Simon Schama, Landscape and Memory, (Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1995). 61. 136 For example, there was a case in Guduata, Abkhazia of representatives of the Helsinki Human Rights Watch coming into contact with five men cleaning weapons in a hotel occupied by refugees who initially claimed to be businessmen visiting the area, before later admitting that they were Russian fighters trained by the KGB who were flown into Abkhazia on Russian humanitarian aid helicopters, and were being paid by the Transnistrian government in US dollars in bank accounts in Moscow. Human Rights Watch. March 1995. Georgia/Abkhazia: Violations of the Laws of War and Russia’s Role in the Conflict, 51.

61

citizenship. Instead the Abkhazian people desired to be a part of Russia, holding a similar

relationship with them as the United States has with the Marshall Islands.

The 1954 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons established that

having citizenship is a basic and inherent right, and that the denial of citizenship would be a

serious infringement on a person's rights.137 In order to ensure this, states need to create the

conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national

minorities in cultural, social, and economic life, as well as in public affairs.138 These

conditions were made available for Abkhazians, they just refused to participate, which would

mean that they do not have a legitimate case for sovereignty and secession. The right to

section prevails over territorial integrity only in the case of severe deprivation of a groups

human rights, and again, this was not happening in Abkhazia, their perceived situation was

completely self inflicted.139 Minority groups do not have a legal right to autonomy, and

granting Abkhazia autonomy would not guarantee success and peace in the region. What did,

however, have legal protection was Georgia’s territorial integrity, something that cannot be

violated by a minorities’ demand for secession.140

Despite the claims of the Abkhazians and the Russians, this denial of citizenship was

not happening in Abkhazia. After the dissolution of the USSR, the majority of Abkhazians

rejected Georgian citizenship, which resulted in them having no citizenship at all. Instead

opting to use locally issued papers which were not internationally recognized.141 The

Abkhazians were not denied citizenship, they refused it. Several solutions with international

precedent were chosen to try and bring some sort of solution to this problem. One of these CEU eTD Collection

137 United Nation, Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons, 1954 138 Hans-Joachim Heintze, “Implementation of Minority Rights through the Devolution of Powers - The Concept of 21 Autonomy Reconsidered,” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights Vol. 9 (2002), 321. 139 Ibid., 329. 140 Ibid.,342. 141 Littlefield, “Citizenship,” 1473.

62

proposals was to grant Abkhazian citizens “Nansen” passports which were historically given

to Russians who fled the Soviet Union during the Russian Civil War, and gave stateless

persons legal existence and documents which allowed them to travel internationally. This

proposal was eventually not approved because the international community did not recognize

Abkhazians as refugees, but as separatists.142 Another proposal was to grant Abkhazians

passports similar to the passports which had been given to Kosovo Albanians by the United

Nations Mission in Kosovo, known as UNMIK passports. The proposal was also eventually

denied due to a lack of international recognition for Abkhazian indepdence. While over forty

states recognized Kosovo at the time the UNMIK passports were issued, no one but Russia

recognized Abkhazia at the time.143

At this point, Russia decided to step in and issue citizenship to the Abkhazians. The

way the citizenship process would work was that Abkhazians would mail their Soviet-era

documents to a consular office which had been created specifically for this purpose in Sochi,

and in return they would receive a Russian passport. This program was massively successful,

and by 2003 over 80% of Abkhazians held Russian passports. By conducting this passport

scheme, Russia was violating Georgian territorial integrity and harming Georgia’s attempts at

consolidating a civic national identity over their internationally recognized legal territory.144

This passport initiative would of course culminate with the 2008 Russo-Georgian war.

In August of 2008, Russia invaded Georgia’s other de facto territory within its

internationally recognized borders, South Ossetia, under the justification that they were

defending their co-nationals’ human rights.145 The Russians invoked Article 51 of the UN CEU eTD Collection Charter, which establishes the inherent right of the individual and the right to collective self-

defense, with Russia arguing that there were Russian citizens in South Ossetia that needed to

142 Ibid.,1472. 143 Ibid.,1472. 144 Ibid.,1473. 145 Ibid., 1461.

63

be protected. However, this was highly questionable due to the fact that in which these people

had only recently become Russian citizens, and were encouraged to do so with economic

rewards. Essentially, once enough people had accepted Russian citizenship, Russia invaded,

because technically the territory was filled with Russian citizens.

The passport initiative and the war left Georgia very wary of minority groups with

strong ties to a foreign state within their borders, as they saw that it could lead to foreign

incursion into their land under the guise of protection, and as such the destruction and

appropriation of Armenian ecclesiastical heritage sites in Georgia could have been influenced

by this experience. This collective suffering of the Georgian people at the hands of a minority

group and foreign power within their own borders also contributed to the desire to represent

Georgia as a nation of Georgians, with no place for a strong and unified Armenian minority

community.

4.4: Destruction of Armenian Cultural Heritage in Georgia and La Long Durée

In order to fully understand the the reasoning for the cultural destruction that has

occured in Georgia, it has been necessary to take in the breadth of Georgia’s christian history,

from the purported missionary work of the apostle Andrew in the first century to the eleventh

century hagiography of Georgia the Hagiorite, to the present day relationship between church

and state in Georgia. From the depths of this historical analysis the foundations of Georgia’s

unique form of religious nationalism has emerged. Georgia’s orthodoxy has been tested

throughout the centuries, but has always persisted. In the late-antique period Georgia and its CEU eTD Collection regional neighbor Armenia faced off in a doctrinal battle which resulted in a schism between

the two countries, placing Georgia on the side of orthodoxy and Armenia with heresy. This

divide between Georgia and Armenia persisted throughout history into the present day, with

each nation placing itself in different spheres of influence; Georgia with the West, and

64

Armenia with the East. The doctrinal split between Georgia and Armenia was a precipitating

factor of this, and shows the importance that ancient religious decisions can have on

contemporary society.

Due to the uniquely religious form of nationalism that prevails in Georgia, Georgian

Orthodox ecclesiastical heritage sites are given prominence over their Armenian counterparts,

and the collective memory is being manipulated to show Georgia as a homogeneous nation,

devoid of its Armenian heritage. The Armenian community of Georgia has a long and storied

history in Georgia, and its contributions should not be erased in favor of a new national

image. The Armenian Apostolic church buildings are not only being destroyed, but are being

appropriated and represented as Georgian churches, which presents the image the Armenian

Apostolic Church has never been present in Georgia,while the Georgian Orthodox Church

has been there all along. This erasure has been overshadowed by the war and cultural

destruction occurring between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, but it should

not be allowed to continue and those responsible should be held accountable. In the case of

the destruction of Armenian ecclesiastical heritage sites in Georgia a unique form of religious

nationalism, in concert with the manipulation of collective memory, have allowed for

political actors to contribute to the marginalization and erasure of culture of a religious and

ethnic minority within a state.

CEU eTD Collection

65

Bibliography

Online News Articles: “Georgia: How Closely Should the State Embrace the Church?” EurasiaNet. May 26, 2016.

“Georgia: Police Press Charges against Priests for LGBT Rally Attack.” EurasiaNet. May 23, 2013.

“Government of Georgia Transferred Tandoyants Temple to the Orthodox Church.” Tolerance and Diversity Institute. Dec. 25, 2017.

Hakobyan, Julia. “Havlabar: Armenian Community in Tbilisi Pays the Price of Urbanization.” ArmeniaNow.com.

Hauer, Neil. “Georgian Orthodox Church takes aim at Armenian churches.” Eurasianet. Nov. 5, 2018.

Krylov, Alexander. “Features of Religious Consciousness in Modern Abkhazia.” Credo Press. March, 17, 2004.

Sawa, Dale. “Monumental Loss: Azerbaijan and the ‘Worst Cultural Genocide of the 21st century’” The Guardian. March 1, 2019.

Taghizadeh, Tamir. “Armenia is Wiping Out Azerbaijani Cultural Heritage” The Guardian. September 2, 2015.

Waller, Nicholas. “Radical Nationalist Groups, Georgian Orthodox Priests Protest Papal Visit.” Georgia Today. Sept. 22, 2016.

Primary Sources Kartlis Tskhovreba (Georgian Chronicles). http://rbedrosian.com/gc1.htm

Armenian Secondary Sources

Asatryan, Garnik. “Armenia and Security Issues in the South Caucasus,” Connections, Vol. 1, No. 3 (2002).

CEU eTD Collection Chahin, M. The Kingdom of Armenia. New York: Croom Press, 1987.

Khorenats’i, Moses. History of the Armenians. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

MacCulloch, John, ed. The Mythology of All Races. Boston: Marshall Jones Company, 1925.

Mkrtchian, Satenik. “Contemporary Armenian Community in Tbilisi,” Iran and the Caucasus, Vol. 13, No. 2 (2009).

66

Thomson, Robert. “Mission, Conversion, and Christianization: The Armenian Example.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies Vol. 12/13 (1988/1989). 28-45.

Georgian Secondary Sources Balsyte, Erika. The Relationship between Religion and the State in Connection to Democracy: The Case of Georgia (Doctoral Dissertation), 2015, Aalborg University, Denmark.

Charles, Robia. “Religiosity and Trust in Religious Institutions: Tales from the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia).” Berkeley Program in Soviet and Post- Soviet Studies (2009).

Cribiore, Raffaella. The School of Libanius in Late Antique Antioch. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Djobadze, Wachtang. Materials for the Study of Georgian Monastaries in the Western Environs of Antioch on the Orontes. Louvain: Corpussco, 1976.

Frend, W.H.C. The Rise of the Monophysite Movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.

Hewitt, George, ed. The Abkhazians: A Handbook. New York: St. Martins Press, 1998.

Hussey, J.M. The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986.

Iwas, Mar Ignatius Zakka I. The Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch At a Glance. Aleppo: Gregorios Yohanna Ibrahim, 1983.

Krueger, Derek, ed. Byzantine Christianity. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2010.

Lang, David. The Last Years of the Georgian Monarchy: 1658-1832. New York: Columbia University Press, 1957.

Matsaberidze, Mamuka, ed. A Short History of the Georgian Church. New York: Troitsa, 2014.

CEU eTD Collection Mgaloblishvili, Tamila. Ancient Christianity in the Caucasus. Oxford: Taylor and Francis, 2016. ◼ Georgian Orthodox Church, Tbilisi: St. Nino, 1988.

Paraskevas, John, and Frederick Reinstein. The Eastern Orthodox Church: A Brief History. Washington, DC: El Greco Press, 1969.

67

Parry, Kenneth. The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity. Oxford: Willey- Blackwell, 2010.

Pelkmans, Mathijs. Defending the Border: Identity, Religion, and Modernity in the Republic of Georgia. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006

Quasten, Johannes, and Joseph Plumpe, eds. The Epistles of St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch. New York: Newman Press, 1946.

Rapp, Stephen. Studies in Medieval Georgian Historiography and Early Texts and Eurasian Contexts. Leuven: Peeters, 2004.

Rayfield, Donald. Edge of Empires: A History of Georgia. London: Reaktion Books, 2012.

Rennie, Kriston. “Weapons of Reform: Gregory VII, Armenia and the Liturgy.” Church History Vol. 81, No. 2 (June 2012), 328-347.

Schopp, Ludwig. The Fathers of the Church: The Apostolic Fathers. New York: Christian Heritage, 1947.

Shepardson, Christine. Controlling Contested Places: Late Antique Antioch and the Spatial Politics of Religious Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014.

Stritecky, Vit. Violent Georgia: Developmentalist Trajectories of the Ethnopolitical Mobilisation. Prague: Karolinum Press, 2015.

Suny, Ronald. The Making of the Georgian Nation. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1988.

Toumanoff, Cyril. Iberia on the Eve of Bagratid Rule: An Inquiry into the Political History of Eastern Georgia Between the Sixth and Ninth Centuries. Louvain: Durbecq, 1952. ◼ Studies in Christian Caucasian History. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,1963. Architectural Sources Armen, Garnis. An Architecture of Survival. 1992.

G. Chubinashvili, National Research Centre for Georgian Art History and Heritage

CEU eTD Collection Preservation. Georgian Christian Art. Tbilisi, 2010.

Hovannisian, Richard. Armenian Cilicia. Costa Mesa, California: Mazda Publishers, 2008.

Schama, Simon. Landscape and Memory, Toronto: Random House of Canada, 1995.

Soviet Art Literature

68

Hoffmann, David, ed.. Stalinism: The Essential Readings. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003.

Christianity Sources

Amirav, Hagit. Authority and Performance: Sociological Perspectives on the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015.

Lang, David. Lives and Legends of the Georgian Saints. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1956.

Murzaku, Ines, ed. Monasticism in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Republics. New York: Rutledge, 2016.

Walford, E., trans. Evagrius Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History (AD431-594), 1846.

Databases

All-Union census of 1959. The national composition of the population in the republics of the USSR - Всесоюзная перепись населения 1959 года. Национальный состав населения по республикам СССР. http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_59.php?reg=8.

Center for Studies of Ethnicity and Multiculturalism. Maps. http://csem.ge/maps/gallery/csem-maps/

Caucasus Research Resource Center, Caucasus Barometer Database. http://caucasusbarometer.org/en/

National Statistics Office of Georgia, 2014 Census. https://www.geostat.ge/en/single-archive/3319#

Research on Armenian Architecture. http://www.armenianarchitecture.am/v2/index.php?Language=2

Nationalism Secondary Sources Brubaker, Rogers: “Religion and Nationalism: Four Approaches” Nations and Nationalism CEU eTD Collection 18 (1), 2012, pp.1-20.

Forecki, Piotr. Reconstructing Memory: The Holocaust in Polish Public Debates. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2013.

Heintze, Hans-Joachim. “Implementation of Minority Rights through the Devolution of Powers - The Concept of Autonomy Reconsidered.” International Journal on Minority and Group Rights Vol. 9, 2002, 325-343.

69

Littlefield, Scott. “Citizenship, Identity and Foreign Policy: The Contradictions and Consequences of Russia’s Passport Distribution in the Separatist Regions of Georgia.” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 61, No. 8, 2009,

McCrone, David. The Sociology of Nationalism. London: Routledge, 1998.

Ramen, Pedro, ed. Religion and Nationalism in Soviet and East European Politics. Durham: Duke University Press, 1989.

Rocker, Rudolf, Nationalism and Culture. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 1998.

Schatz, Robert. Ervin Staub, Howard Lavine: “On the Varieties of National Attachment: Blind Versus Constructive Patriotism.” Political Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1999.

Smith, Anthony: National Identity. London: Penguin Books,1991. - Theories of Nationalism. London: Duckworth, 1983. - Myths and Memories of the Nation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. - Chosen Peoples: Sacred Sources of National Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. - Ethno-Symbolism and Nationalism: A Cultural Approach. London: Routledge, 2009.

Tajfel, Henri. Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1981.

Tamir, Yael. Why Nationalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019.

United Nations

UNESCO. UNESCO in Brief - Mission and Mandate. https://en.unesco.org/about-us/introducing-unesco.

UNESCO. Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, 1995.

UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, Fifth Session, 19 November 2010. CEU eTD Collection UNESCO. Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic Minorities,1992.

UNESCO. Identifying and Inventorying Intangible Cultural Heritage, unesco.org, https://ich.unesco.org/doc/src/01851-EN.pdf.

70

United Nations. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Domestic Law

Law of Georgia on Cultural Heritage, 2007.

Law of the Republic of Armenia on Intangible Cultural Heritage, 2009.

CEU eTD Collection